40/70 Benchmark

He has been gungo ho...at least as of a week or so ago.

February 1969 and 1978 didn't get the memo. Truth be told, slightly negative with high variance is probably ideal at this latitude, but I would rather exotically negative than positive.

Generally less of an issue an el nino seasons, no? Not being sarcastic...obviously it can still be an issue, but just in general...

SAI....that is it.

My only take away from his work is that there is less of a chance of an exotically negative AO/NAO in the seasonal mean this season than weak nino climo would imply. That is about the extent of the significance of this indicator.....he can't wrap his mind around the fact that its but one piece to the polar field puzzle, and should not represent the primary basis for an entire seasonal outlook. This is why his seasonal outlooks stink. I will be interested to see if he tries to claim victory if we get a cold, snowy winter that verifies with a positive NAO in the mean, which is very possible.

Yes, but there is a reason why seasons that are predominated by +NAO are milder and not as snowy. Modularity is great, but I'd rather take my chances with it shifting between -1 and neutral, rather than +1 and neutral...there is much more margin for error with regard to track with the former. Sure, the Pacific can still save you, but like I said...less margin for error and more can go wrong.

That said, seasonal guidance has improved over the better part of two decades. Point remains, though...certainly.

Around the 12th.

Like last year....models kept trying to build an NAO prematurely in the long range, which I, and many others correctly called BS on because there was no impetus for the change. However once the polar stratosphere began to warm dramatically, there was reason to take the guidance more seriously by the time extreme blocking was modeled in March. I'm sure we had some folks who kept staring at past verification curves for NAO and continued to dismiss, but they were patently wrong to do so in the end. Interpret data first, and look to guidance for affirmation. All that being said, you have obviously interpreted the data differently than I, and thus are skeptical of model output that differs...which is fine. I'm just explaining why the past failure of the EURO seasonal outlook in and of itself does not sway me.

For me personally, I couldn't care less about that. My only take away is that the the model consensus overwhelmingly corroborates my interpretation of the data, which is also strongly supported by ENSO climatology. IMHO, this is the correct way to utilize model guidance...both within the context of seasonal, and medium range forecasting. Its not about blindly accepting or discarding their output based upon past performance (not saying you are)....though all else being equal, sure. But optimally, its about knowing how the model has arrived at the solution it has, and whether or not one agrees with it.

Yea, far from ideal. Someone gave me a good suggestion at the end of last year, but I didn't write it down, unfortunately

Anyone know of any free graphic tools for making maps? TIA...

Looks like a modest NAO, as well......but extreme pos PDO/-EPO.

I'd place alot of money on a weaker LF had an ERC occured.

Still not much subsurface warmth in 1.2. Mostly region 3.