Tuesday, November 30, 2010

30 snowfalls!

As a result of my diligent reading of my sisters blog (http://melany7.blogspot.com) I come before you today with some interesting theories. Although not the primary benefit of her blog, I have found myself continually endued with small snippets of knowledge and pleasant entertainment. One of these small snippets of entertaining knowledge comes from her post on predicted snowfalls (http://melany7.blogspot.com/2010/10/27-snowfalls.html). In this blog post she explains how one may predict the number of snowfalls in a year. This number, as the theory goes, directly correlates to the day of the month on which the first snow fall occurs. In my sisters case this happened on October 27th. Consequently, she should see it snow 27 times this winter. To date, by my sisters house, it has snowed four times. This number (27) she was disappointed with as it is relatively high. If the snow fall had waited a few days, the number of predicted snowfalls would have dropped drastically. Well........ In good old Wisconsin fashion...... we have beet her. Twas just the other day I mentioned to a family member (and fellow reader of the blog) that I hoped it waited to snow a few days until the beginning of December. Such was not the case (jinx!). Today, November 30th it snowed for the first time. According to the theory we should expect 30 snowfalls this year. Although like my sister I think this sounds like an old wives tale, I will still keep track to see how accurate it is. I have more often than not been surprised at the accuracy of these wives 'tales.' Part of me hopes this one is false, since if it's not false we're gonna get a heck amount of snow........... we'll see......... Snowfall number 1, down -Nov 30th 2010.

Cheers!

4 comments:

  1. You are absolutely right! lol Changing it now..... thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Can we call this a peer-reviewed study?? Guess we'd have to wait until i'd published my results. Now I guess it's more of a team effort. Haha :D We'll see whose states is more accurate...

    ReplyDelete