World's Worst Weather? Really?

[nartreb]

Rank each candidate location in assending order in each catagory for record of:
High Temp
Low Temp
Annual Liquid precip
Seasonal Frozen precip
Maximum Wind

Interesting way around the scaling problem, and it's an easy calculation to do, if you allow it to be defined relative to the pool of candidates. If you want to know where Mt W ranks in, say, record annual liquid precipitation compared to all weather stations worldwide, that's more data than I'm willing to search through.
Using absolute rankings in this formula would also mean that Mt Washington's #1 spot in wind [I'll concede that for the sake of argument] would be totally overwhelmed by its middling rankings in other categories. Remember, there are thousands, probably tens of thousands, of weather stations in the world. You get 1 + 1300 + 3478 + ... or something like that, where the size of the huge numbers (the ones that matter to the score) have rather little to do with the size of the difference in weather being measured. You still have a scaling problem, except now it's an arbitrary result of the number and distribution of the comparison set. But if that's the formula you want to use, we can give it a try - maybe restricting the data set to weather stations in the US or something for a start.

If you use a restricted comparison set, there's a new problem in that no location has a fixed score - the score is entirely dependent on which other locations are in the set of candidates. So if somebody says, "but how come you didn't look at location X?", you have to recalculate every other candidate's score.
Computationally that's not such a huge problem. The real interesting part is that you can change how two locations compare to each other by inserting or deleting other locations in your comparison set. Add a bunch of rainy spots, and suddenly a poor ranking in rain really hurts. The scaling/sampling problem becomes very important.

To really face that problem squarely, one option is to only apply the formula to sets of two candidates.
So, for example, I presume Mt Washington beats Miami, 3 factors to 2 (lucky thing there's an odd number of factors!) or, by your lowest-score-wins formula, 7 points to 8. I don't think that's exactly what you had in mind, though.

I still think all-time-records are a stupid way to determine "worst weather" (I mean, we're not trying to decide "worst weather seventy-two years ago") but I promised to take on all comers using their own formula, and I will. Shall we pick, say, 50 weather stations scattered through the US? One per state, whichever is first alphabetically by station code?

Notice I'm restricting myself to weather stations in the US - that's like fighting handcuffed and blindfolded since most of the spots we're really interested in - high mountaintops - don't have weather stations and aren't in the US. I'm hoping that Mt Washington, despite having 90 years of recording to pick its extremes from, is so far from the "world's worst" that some randomly-selected station will beat it. (Of course, I'm also curious to see what happens when the list is deliberately enriched with "extreme" places... one way to find out...)

 

[Jeff-B]

Interesting way around the scaling problem, and it's an easy calculation to do

Keep it simple, thats the focus.
You can pick a weather station on each continent for that matter, not just the US.
Throw in Death Valley or the South pole, but include all 5 categories at each location.

Mt Washington Observatory makes its claim based on the wide veriety of conditons that prevail.
This is why the comparison test has equal billing for the 5 specified conditions.
Arguably one can state that ice is worse than snow which is better than rain...except rain at 36deg and in 75mph winds....and on and on....

Bottom line;
This is a simple fixed comparison which will rank the locations accordingly.
Lets see the results for a benchmark before speculating any further.

 

[Lawn Sale]

Worst Weather? What the hell? What about places like Houston? I can't take the heat and humidity. When I moved from Boston to Easthampton, MA it hit 100 for like, 3 days in a row and it was terribly humid. That was awful! Give me the cold any day.

-Dr. Wu

I have to agree here, I can't take the heat but love the cold.

 

[Jeff-B]

what about extreme heat, duststorms, drought, tornadoes?

Judging what's the worst weather is a lot like judging Olympic figure skating.

You are correct, Mt Washington won't produce world records in those catagories.
But can take a hit on the chin from a Hurricane which far out weighs those conditions in the damage dept.

What about wildfires?


"Figure skating?"
Not really, but point taken.

 

[w7xman]

You are correct, Mt Washington won't produce world records in those catagories.
But can take a hit on the chin from a Hurricane which far out weighs those conditions in the damage dept.

Damage is a human concept, but the altered landscape above treeline is testament to the weather's continuous barage. On the summit we say that anything that can blow away has...and hence nothing flying at you.

Hurricanes and tornados obviously produce horrendous weather, but there is a repeatability factor that makes any location 'not have the worst weather' but once or twice per century...

 

[grouseking]

I'm back for more abuse. I tried really hard not to come back, but this stuff is just too good.

W7xman's comment about the altered landscape is how I'm going to base my formula. Bare with me, I'm not a scientist and couldn't even get past calculus 2!

The formula Jeff-B came up with got me to thinking. Mine is going to be a little more difficult though. I wasn't going to make a formula because I thought the weather spoke for itself but here it goes.

Here are the factors: Temperature, fog, extreme wind, thunderstorm danger, snow, ice, rime, and rain. How are these weighted? This is how I differ. You can't really keep it simple, but I'll do my best.

Extreme Wind...60 %
Thunderstorm Danger...20%
Fog...5%
Temperature...5%
Rime...5%
Snow...2%
Ice...2%
Rain...1%

Let me explain each variable and its weight. I'll go from bottom to top, or from least important, to most important, in my eyes.
Rain 1% Lots of rain falls on Mount Washington but you can avoid rain by itself easily with warm clothing...so its weighted low.

Ice...2% There are ice storms on Washington, but generally the only people that experience them are the summit crew since most stay home on these days. Just a generalization...but I wouldn't willfully hike in an ice storm, would you?

Snow...2% Snow by itself isn't bad, as long as you are properly clothed.

Rime...5% Now we're dealing with more of a nuicance Rime directly relates to fog and temperature, making them all 5 percent. Rime means its below freezing and foggy, since rime is freezing fog. By itself it isn't too dangerous, as long as you are covered.

Temperature...5% Temperature is a big deal for people normally but not as big a deal in this equation, because of a much larger factor which I will go into later. Most experienced hikers who ascend Washington know to dress for the appropriate temperature, hence the 5%.

Fog...5% I toyed with making this more, because fog is a big deal on the summit. But if you remove all other factors in the equation, fog isn't a huge problem in the grand scheme of things. (maybe ill make it 10 percent at some point)

Thunderstorm Danger...20% This is a big one, especially being above treeline. Nothing more dangerous than being at the highest point in New England during a tstorm. It would be worth more, but thunder generally only poses a threat from late May to September. Its been known to happen in winter, but for simplicity we'll stick with the May-Sept thinking.

Extreme Wind...60% The moment we've all been waiting for....The most important factor in the equation. Without wind, pretty much all of the weather mentioned above is survivable. In fact, the majority of the population live in locations that experience all of that weather at some point, except for maybe rime. MWN's winds average 35 mph during the year, and it increases towards 50 mph in winter. All of the above weather is easy to deal with until you introduce wind, especially gale force windsor stronger. Its the deciding factor. People freak out over blizzards more than regular snow storms because wind is involved. Google the Blizzard of '93, '96, '78 or the Great Blizzard of 1888 and see how people deal with heavy snow combined with extreme wind. There are fantastic books in the library as well. During winter, MWN is basically a constant blizzard with small breaks here and there. Combine the wind with all the factors and you come up with a very dangerous climate to live in, quite possibly the worst on Earth, and definitely the worst recorded weather on Earth...according to my high tech college graduate equation

***Wildcard...What puts MWN at the top? Something I've been mentioning many times...the variability of its weather. It was quite calm...albeit foggy midweek but after this front moved thru today temps dropped from 43 to 23 right now as I'm typing. Winds gusted to well over 60 mph and are steady around 40mph right now. Snow was recorded and now there is freezing fog with a wind chill of 3. Burr! Just a few days/hours ago, winds were calmer and temps warmer. It is that variabilty that has been recorded for over 70 years that makes MWN's weather/climate...whatever you want to call it....some of if not the worst in the world. Good night.

grouseking

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Claiming that Mt Washington has the 'world's worst weather' is similar to Tamworth (or some nearby town like Conway) claiming that Chocorua is the 'world's most climbed mountain'.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Washington and the weather claim even if it's not true simply because its proximity to major population centers (and don't forget Montreal to the north) make it a magnet. At least arguing about it is a lot more productive than hassling over cell phones, dogs, GPSRs, etc!

 

[dr_wu002]

I'm willing to bet (I'd even put money on it) that Mt. Caubvick in the Torngats has some pretty ugly weather, quite comparable to Mt. Washington, especially for a big peak but with relatively low elevation. Mt. Caubvick is pretty remote and certainly doesn't have a weather station but from what I read and eye-witness accounts, it's a pretty harsh place and certainly (due to many reasons, including its remoteness) quite a bit more dangerous than Washington despite its low elevation.

It seems difficult to quantify anything when the term "worst" comes into play. This argument reminds me of the recent "argument" about whether or not Pluto should be classified as a planet. Washington is a fun place to be, the weather can be pretty rough and you get a wide variety of things. But I think you can only compare it to other mountains at similar elevations. It would be interesting to compare it to the Urals (in Russia) Carpathian Mountains in Eastern Europe, 6K's in the Southern Appalachians etc.

-Dr. Wu

 

[grouseking]

I think the only places that can really rival Mt Washington would be on the Torngats up in Canada. The weather is bad enough to begin with at that latitude and those mtns must make it worse. If someone can find me a good weather station that rivals mount washington I'd be more than happy to change my view.

grouseking

These mountains interest me very much. But I womder if how variable their weather can be? Too bad there isn't a weather station up there, or we'd have an idea.

grouseking

 

[bintrepidhiker]

I'm back for more abuse. I tried really hard not to come back, but this stuff is just too good.

W7xman's comment about the altered landscape is how I'm going to base my formula. Bare with me, I'm not a scientist and couldn't even get past calculus 2!

The formula Jeff-B came up with got me to thinking. Mine is going to be a little more difficult though. I wasn't going to make a formula because I thought the weather spoke for itself but here it goes.

Here are the factors: Temperature, fog, extreme wind, thunderstorm danger, snow, ice, rime, and rain. How are these weighted? This is how I differ. You can't really keep it simple, but I'll do my best.

Extreme Wind...60 %
Thunderstorm Danger...20%
Fog...5%
Temperature...5%
Rime...5%
Snow...2%
Ice...2%
Rain...1%

Let me explain each variable and its weight. I'll go from bottom to top, or from least important, to most important, in my eyes.
Rain 1% Lots of rain falls on Mount Washington but you can avoid rain by itself easily with warm clothing...so its weighted low.

Ice...2% There are ice storms on Washington, but generally the only people that experience them are the summit crew since most stay home on these days. Just a generalization...but I wouldn't willfully hike in an ice storm, would you?

Snow...2% Snow by itself isn't bad, as long as you are properly clothed.

Rime...5% Now we're dealing with more of a nuicance Rime directly relates to fog and temperature, making them all 5 percent. Rime means its below freezing and foggy, since rime is freezing fog. By itself it isn't too dangerous, as long as you are covered.

Temperature...5% Temperature is a big deal for people normally but not as big a deal in this equation, because of a much larger factor which I will go into later. Most experienced hikers who ascend Washington know to dress for the appropriate temperature, hence the 5%.

Fog...5% I toyed with making this more, because fog is a big deal on the summit. But if you remove all other factors in the equation, fog isn't a huge problem in the grand scheme of things. (maybe ill make it 10 percent at some point)

Thunderstorm Danger...20% This is a big one, especially being above treeline. Nothing more dangerous than being at the highest point in New England during a tstorm. It would be worth more, but thunder generally only poses a threat from late May to September. Its been known to happen in winter, but for simplicity we'll stick with the May-Sept thinking.

Extreme Wind...60% The moment we've all been waiting for....The most important factor in the equation. Without wind, pretty much all of the weather mentioned above is survivable. In fact, the majority of the population live in locations that experience all of that weather at some point, except for maybe rime. MWN's winds average 35 mph during the year, and it increases towards 50 mph in winter. All of the above weather is easy to deal with until you introduce wind, especially gale force windsor stronger. Its the deciding factor. People freak out over blizzards more than regular snow storms because wind is involved. Google the Blizzard of '93, '96, '78 or the Great Blizzard of 1888 and see how people deal with heavy snow combined with extreme wind. There are fantastic books in the library as well. During winter, MWN is basically a constant blizzard with small breaks here and there. Combine the wind with all the factors and you come up with a very dangerous climate to live in, quite possibly the worst on Earth, and definitely the worst recorded weather on Earth...according to my high tech college graduate equation

***Wildcard...What puts MWN at the top? Something I've been mentioning many times...the variability of its weather. It was quite calm...albeit foggy midweek but after this front moved thru today temps dropped from 43 to 23 right now as I'm typing. Winds gusted to well over 60 mph and are steady around 40mph right now. Snow was recorded and now there is freezing fog with a wind chill of 3. Burr! Just a few days/hours ago, winds were calmer and temps warmer. It is that variabilty that has been recorded for over 70 years that makes MWN's weather/climate...whatever you want to call it....some of if not the worst in the world. Good night.

grouseking

makes sense to me. some could argue the lesser points weighing more or less but wind is the higher factor in any equation. like you say most of these other factors are survivable but once wind is thrown in the chances of survival goes down. with this area having, i believe, the highest average wind speed throughout the year and adding in all the other contributing factors it is in my view the home of the world's worst weather.
Well said, well said.

 

[nartreb]

grouse, bintrepid, you've skipped the hard part:
how do you *measure* thunderstorm danger? Lightning strikes (within X radius) per year? Days per year in which thunder is heard?
how do you *measure* fog? Average daily visibility (in feet or meters)? Foggy days (visibility below X) per year?
and so forth.

Come up with a *number* for Mt Washington, you'll know you have a complete definition.


I've been having trouble finding weather stations that publish their all-time records in most categories, anybody have suggestions?

 

[grouseking]

grouse, bintrepid, you've skipped the hard part:
how do you *measure* thunderstorm danger? Lightning strikes (within X radius) per year? Days per year in which thunder is heard?
how do you *measure* fog? Average daily visibility (in feet or meters)? Foggy days (visibility below X) per year?
and so forth.

Come up with a *number* for Mt Washington, you'll know you have a complete definition.


I've been having trouble finding weather stations that publish their all-time records in most categories, anybody have suggestions?

This is all hypothetical, I thought. You can't exactly come up with numbers for these things. Especially since its my theory. But as I stated, its more about lightning then thunder since thunder is just the noise. Its very dangerous to be above treeline during this type of weather obviously, hence it being worth 20%..maybe it should be more. Same with fog...could have made it more than 5 % and it should go without saying its measured by visibility. But I made wind 60 % to make a point. Wind is such a driving force on the summit that it stops people from climbing. Again, almost all of these factors can easily be survived without strong winds. Add that to the equation and you have a whole new ball game. More examples from yesterday. Washington had fog, snow, sleet and freezing rain. Temps in the upper 20s...a nasty day for sure. But its survivable without wind. All you need is a winter jacket. Add the maximum gust to 77 mph they had and you suddenly turn a dull winter day into a life threatning one. Easy to get blown off the mountain on a day like that. Wind is what sets the location apart.

grouseking

PS As for all time records at certain weather stations, I don't know if places set up pages for that. You have to do your own research thru data over the years. At the end of a month sometimes the station will have a summary for the past 30 days. But its up to you to sift thru it all. I had to do that for 120 years of Bethlehem NH data for a global warming project once. That took awhile....

 

[Puma concolor]

So this is a numbers game, eh? How about Minus 148? Somehow, I don't think Art Davidson and Dave Johnston would agree that Mount Washington has the world's worst weather.

http://www.amazon.com/Minus-148-Degrees-Ascent-McKinley/dp/0898866871

 

[DougPaul]

So this is a numbers game, eh? How about Minus 148? Somehow, I don't think Art Davidson and Dave Johnston would agree that Mount Washington has the world's worst weather.

The real numbers were: est winds 130 mph, est temp -30 to -45 (F, I presume).

-148 was simply the lowest number on their wind-chill chart.

Doug

 

[Jeff-B]

I've been having trouble finding weather stations that publish their all-time records in most categories, anybody have suggestions?

Nartreb,
If data is not available from other locations for ALL TIME RECORDS, then set up a comparison for data which IS available.
Use whichever makes the most logical sense, either the MEAN or the EXTREME and do so consistently through the test.

The only problem with using MEANS or AVERAGES is that it removes the harshness which is the whole "worst weather" claim in question.

Example (not actual data):
100 deg day followed by a 50 deg day results in an average of 75 deg for both days...not all that bad.
But the fact the temp swung so far in a short period DOES make it a considerable factor.
In light of this type of data the EXTREMEs for High & low would better describe the weather.

What "might" make an interesting study is to compare Mt Washington weather stats for a single year against other stations in that same year. Again focused on the EXTREME data if available.

I'll still stick to the 5 main catagories, of equal billing for a comparison test with locations ranked in assending order of each catagory, then totaled together for the "single number" result.
RAIN
WIND
SNOW/ICE/HAIL (Frozen precip)
HIGH TEMP
LOW TEMP

Grouseking,
I'll agree that your level of importance for weather conditons should be offset.
However, for a comparison data study, your figures would be a difficult task, as Nartreb had stated.
At this point, one can only compare real data results to that of another location which provides the same data.
We are fortunate to have the Mt. Washington data available in such detail.

 

[Puma concolor]

Of course it's a wind chill, DougPaul. I don't have the book in front of me right now, but I believe the actual temperature was closer to -60. In any event, people from the Northeast use Mount Washington in winter to help train for Denali in the summer. The idea that Mount Washington's weather compares to Denali's on any given day of the year is laughable.

 

[DougPaul]

Of course it's a wind chill, DougPaul. I don't have the book in front of me right now, but I believe the actual temperature was closer to -60.

People often throw around the windchill temp to impress people and don't specify which number they are using-- -148F real and -148F windchill are very different. And I do have the book in front of me.

Doug

 

[Puma concolor]

Okay, you win, you have the book in front of you!!! For the record, the lowest recorded actual temperature was -129 in Antarctica ... which I also believe just might have worse weather than Mount Washington.

[Edit: Summit temp. = -58, p. 139; snow cave temps. of -30 to -45 with 130 MPH winds = -148 as noted by DougPaul, p. 152]

 

[jn316]

worst weather?

Back in the old days I figured you could trust the observers on Mt Washington because they proudly claimed to be "The World's Worst Weather Observers".

 

[grouseking]

Nartreb,
Grouseking,
I'll agree that your level of importance for weather conditons should be offset.
However, for a comparison data study, your figures would be a difficult task, as Nartreb had stated.
At this point, one can only compare real data results to that of another location which provides the same data.
We are fortunate to have the Mt. Washington data available in such detail.

Tough, but it can be done. For simplicity, you don't have to but I think its important to at least weight wind much higher than anything else. I put in all of those factors to make my point.

For data searching, you can start out by checkin this page . Scroll down a bit and find the data tables, where you can compare all the major recording cities in the US by, record high, record low, average days above 90, below 32, av. days with precip of .01 inches or more, average snowfall, average wind, maximum wind, percent of total possible sunshine, then ranking them most to least, cloudiness factor (part of the fog answer), and average relative humidity in morning and afternoon. Those are the main things to look at.

Percent of possible sun, greatest to least Look where Mount Washington is....tied for second cloudiest place in the US. And they have twice the amount of data in years as Juneau.

As for really researching the nitty gritty, and to look to see what the weather was for each day, or hourly obs....they're somewhere. I looked at hourly obs from the early 1900s on microfiche a couple years back for a project, but I'm sure you could purchase them if you wanted. I was lucky to be a student at college so I had all I needed at my fingertips. This info is available to the general public, but I think you may have to pay for it. If someone knows for sure, let me know.

grouseking