stadiumwave

4 hours ago, Isotherm said:

My winter outlook has been posted on the main board, which links to it, for those interested:

Thanks for sharing Tom. Good luck but I hope you're off your game this year. It is 2020 after all. 

On 11/5/2020 at 12:25 PM, 40/70 Benchmark said:

https://easternmassweather.blogspot.com/2020/11/winter-outlook-2020-2021-mixed-type-la.html

 

Here is my winter outlook, if you are looking for something to pass the time, while a team of molasses molecules counts the NV ballots.

The abridged version is linked....there are also options for more technical discussion of the telconnections if so desired.

Most wintery period looks to be December, and potentially another bout in March, but it may very well just result in a cold spring...as last season did.

Great job!!

46 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

Does anyone know what the other 4 winters were besides 2016-17?

1988-89 was one & it's also a strong analog for this winter for various reasons. If you look at that winter I encourage you look at it in 10 day increments. DEC had a good cold stretch & so did FEB/MAR. But JAN had a really strong warm stretch that kind of skews the 3 month mean.

21 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Deal with it

 

- Cosgrove 

 

He has not had a good winter forecast ever. Whatever his forecast is , if you go completely opposite , you will win every single time . And his very last point “if stronger Niña” tells you all you need to know . That’s his out 

He did talk of warmth last year & was not popular. Larry is objective...not a "cold every year" wishcaster. He may be wrong but not for that reason.

Kind of refreshing to see someone not simply driven by nuances & status quo Climatology & make a cookie cutter La Nina forecast. That's lazy! And that is a lot of what I see every year nationally. 

It's evident from his analog years he put a lot of thought & considered many factors. 

Larry Cosgrove 

So is this temporary? I know @ORH_wxman had mentioned he thought easterlies would keep this east. Right now...clearly coldest anomalies chugging west.

Is @Isotherm not posting a winter outlook this year? 

2 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Looks like some west-based NAO love in that forecast. 2010-11 like.

Where the warmth is located around & north of Hudson it would appear so. 

IRI Model updated

DJF

JFM

On 10/1/2020 at 4:34 PM, RogueWaves said:

This is a 2020 Nina. No point in comparing with the 00's. Thx anyways

I'm hoping this is sarcasm?

14 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

I'd like to see the H5 look. 

Trust me...you don't want to see...lol. There are no positives to glean.

DEC...has a -NAO & might possibly squeeze a good storm or slop...if there is a temporary improvement out west not discernable in the means.

JAN

FEB

The culprit at this point is that most of the seasonal models keep indicating a very strong +AO/+NAO/+EPO & a -PNA.  So if the models are wrong at this point just a little it will lead to a big bust. If they are correct it's going to mean a long and depressing Winter for Winter weather lovers.

Has the look of a very strong stratosphere ploar vortex.  I'll be honest this would surprise me. It seems that most stratosphere experts believe that the record strong +IOD last winter was the lead culprit. IOD is negative for now & I dunno.

FWIW...European Seasonal model updated & its a complete blowtorch for the entire CONUS for the entire winter. Alaska & Grrenland is the only winter in all of N. America. 

33 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah and Sept might still be neg too...but the last week or two has def trended strongly toward positive....I had posted the SSTA map yesterday or the day before. We'll see if it reverses again...I'd expect it to, but no guarantees.

 

Current SST anomalies...certainly +PDO.

Last 15 days...increasing +PDO.

Although I 100% agree with your statement hat it can quickly change & especially during fall seasons. So, thinking winter by looking at PDO in fall "can" certainly backfire. 

39 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

I’ve always thought there was pretty compelling evidence that the 134F wasn’t real.

Its a much tougher case to say for sure it was under 130F, but I don’t think questioning the 134F is that nefarious. 

So, let's say it was 132. Who knows maybe it was 135. I still think the driving force is just to think "that just can't happen", so let's investigate a reason to show how bad they missed it. Lets do away with the record. 

So, let's question the 100 degree temp in Alaska in 1915 also. 

On 8/19/2020 at 2:39 PM, bdgwx said:

Probably. Yes. There is an incredibly detailed and lengthy write up by William Reid and Christopher Burt regarding the matter. The investigation is still on-going, but unless something has changed it is my understanding that this will eventually be presented to the WMO for official review. 

The following is a lengthy 8-part series summarizing the state of the investigation through March 2020 from William Reid.

http://stormbruiser.com/chase/2013/08/29/death-valleys-134f-record-temperature-study-part-one/

You can review a considerably more consolidated summary on Christopher Burt's blog.

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/an-investigation-of-death-valleys-134f-world-temperature-record.html 

Count me unimpressed. Revisionist history. Maybe they will figure out a clever way to say 100 years from how stupid we were & our temperature data was way off....lol. I mean...come on. This is about setting the stage for new records.

Climate change is real but I'm sorry I'm bothered by this. 

On 8/17/2020 at 8:28 AM, LibertyBell said:

Chris, Death Valley recorded the first 130 degree temp in the shade in modern history......and if verified, it will be the first verified 130 degree temp ever recorded (all the ones before are being challenged because no other nearby location was nearly as hot.)  While, at the same time, there was a unique severe thunderstorm and heavy rain going on in SF.......

 

Of course there's just no way they observed the correct record of 134 in 1913. Just has to be wrong...right?

FWIW...something else to look at. Josh Herman initialized his RRWT model yesterday, which is based on reoccurring rosby wave train. It did well early last year until SSW shakeup, struggled after that. 

30 days NOV 24-DEC24

90 days NOV 24-FEB22

You East Coast folks will like the look 9f last week of DEC & beginning of JAN

DEC 25-29

DEC 30-JAN 3

Great forecast & method!

On 9/30/2019 at 7:09 AM, donsutherland1 said:

At least some research shows that at least parts of the Arctic today are the warmest in at least the last 44,000 years.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL057188

I do not have a dog in this fight. Firm believer in AGW...however, the history of Arctic temps is a moving target.

23 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

I'm sure they can....but the big part of the paper was how much the magnitude changed in OHC and with relatively high certainty. With the corrections, their uncertainty goes through the roof, so it gives far less confidence in such a value which was larger than previous estimates....part of the reason the paper was a big deal a the time.

Just a reminder we have to remain humble.

Dr. Judith Curry retweeted this yesterday

This kind of...again...is making the point I've been pointing out in this thread: distrust is growing in science community 

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

This is probably the reason. DeSmog was among the sources used to compile a list of climate change contrarians for a comparison group study.

https://www.desmogblog.com/roger-pielke-jr

Pielke, Jr. has repeatedly downplayed the climate change link to extreme weather. Perhaps, as attribution techniques are relatively young, his understanding is dated. But even before attribution techniques became robust, the IPCC position about the link between climate change and extreme weather events was stronger than Pielke’s.

Finally, the paper in question concerns contrarians, not all of whom are “deniers.” The paper explained:

In particular, by contrarians we refer to individuals frequently sourced by institutions denying the documented realities of CC and its consequences and/or individuals who have personally expressed inaccurate statements. As such, we selected CCC using open registries that clearly document their contrarian positions. 

There are several limitations to our data-driven analysis worth first discussing. First, we do not account for the range of professional backgrounds, nor do we account for the different types of skepticism promoted by different CCC. By way of example, recent work comparing fundamental skepticism (relating to sources and existence of CC) to impact skepticism (relating to potential impacts of CC) reveals that the frequency of the fundamental skepticism has decreased over time, whereas the frequency of impact skepticism has increased over time, possibly signaling a strategic shift within the contrarian movement.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4

Almost certainly, the “impact skepticism” description fits Pielke, Jr.’s work related to climate change and extreme weather events. He does not come across as being in the “fundamental skepticism” category.

He is in the same mold as Dr. Curry. Again, just because facts show that one aspect of Climate Change is not playing out as the narrative says does not equal denial. That's the point of what myself, Dr. Curry, & many others are blowing the whistle about. It's not science. 

For instance, look at the trend of strong to violent tornado trend since 1954 per NOAA records & its obvious there are issues about AGW we do not understand. The trend does not line up with the predictions.

The AMS:

(NOAA's data below)

Why can't we just be humble & say "there is much we do not understand yet"? Instead we'd rather say "we know", "we know", "we know". Just like this whole attribution joke about a heatwave that just occurred within a few weeks ago. And beyond comprehension blazes through Peer Review...lol. Its bullcrap & you know it.

You think that'll stop the alarmist from shouting AGW as the cause of the next EF-5? Heck no! And many of those who no better will say nothing. And the ones who do say something will be labeled as deniers of AGW although that is not true at all.