George001

1 hour ago, dewydews said:

Seems as though the majority of folks on here are too dumb to grasp bluewave's "theories" (despite being logically sound), or there's just some weird cognitive dissonance going on with people being unable to cope with a new, rapidly evolving climate.

I agree with Bluewave for the most part, but calling most of the people here dumb isnt productive nor is it true. Don’t get me wrong, blatant climate change denial is dumb, and I am not afraid to call people who believe that bullshit dumb. However, im not seeing that here. As someone who agrees with a good 90% of what Bluewave says, I actually think it is a good thing that people are challenging his theories and offering different points of view. There is room for debate in regards to the degree of attribution and how much our recent bad stretch is due to climate change vs just plain old bad luck. 

On 5/25/2025 at 5:01 PM, 40/70 Benchmark said:

New England didn't get a great winter.

I would rather have a repeat of this past winter than 09-10.

6 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Finished dead-center of my range.

Yep, nice call

10 hours ago, FPizz said:

It's becoming sad, as he obviously is a good poster, but his head has become so clouded now is downright laughable.  Talk about letting your bias get in way, lol.  You are 100% right, we went through a stage where we averaged a good 7" or so more than normal for 20 years.  Now since 2016 it is a below average stretch and the new norm.  So delusional.  

The sample size isn’t large enough to know for sure one way or another, but given that AGW is accelerating rather than just steadily increasing, it’s worth keeping an open mind about his ideas. The snow decline is already happening in some southern areas, and it started before 2016. It’s a logical assumption to make that with additional warming since then, some areas farther north reached a tipping point. There isn’t anything wrong with discussing ideas about what the future holds and trying to figure out what is going on. There is no malicious agenda pushing going on here. If Bluewave is right he’s right, if he’s wrong he’s wrong. Maybe he’s right about some things, wrong about others (I would bet on this one). We all have our biases, but Bluewave is a fairly objective poster.

18 hours ago, GaWx said:

 Yesterday, JB was already strongly hinting at a cold winter in the NE US and Midwest based on his expectation of it being the 2nd La Nada winter in a row. I follow his methodology, which is clearly explained. His analog 2nd year La Nada winters are 1960-1, 1967-8, 1990-1, 1993-4, and 2013-4. However, there are flaws in what he presented.

-Even though 2024-5 was officially (i.e., per ONI) La Nada, it unlike his other 1st year La Nada winters in the dataset was clearly La Niña  per RONI (it dipped all of the way to moderate Niña),which I think is more relevant. So, that disqualifies 2025-6 as potentially being a 2nd year La Nada from my perspective.

-Somehow he left off the pretty cold winter of 1981-2, which clearly was a 2nd year La Nada per both ONI and RONI.

-He included 1993-4. Although he’s right that that qualifies per ONI as a 2nd year La Nada, I’d exclude it because 1992-3 was a weak El Niño per RONI.

-The biggest problem imho is that he uses 1991-2020, the warmest climo at the website, for his base climo for the entire dataset. That makes his analog map too cold considering that 1960-1 and 1967-8 shouldn't be using 1991-2020 as climo. Also, 1990-1 should use 1981-2010 for its climo. Even 1993-4, which I said I wouldn’t even include in the set, could arguably also more appropriately use 1981-2010 for its climo as 1993-4 is in the middle of that period. If it were me, I’d use 1951-2010 from the website’s choices for all of the years for the best balance rather than 1991-2020.

 So, this is JB’s map to try to predict 2025-6: centered near a quite cold -4 in NE/Midwest

 

However, if I were to do it myself by accepting 2025-6 as a potential 2nd year La Nada winter, I’d get it centered near -2 for the NE/Midwest instead of -4: still chilly no doubt but with only half the anomaly that JB’s map has:

I disagree with his methodology. Even if he is right, it won’t be because of a 2nd la nada winter in a row. Basing a winter forecast strictly off ENSO is already dubious to begin with, when ENSO is that weak it is a better idea to rely on other things. Also, like Chuck said the sample size is way too small. Personally, I haven’t even began to narrow down my analog years yet. I just think it is way too early.

1 hour ago, michsnowfreak said:

I personally already like the look for next winter for the simple fact that the worst case scenario for winter here (strong El Nino) appears to be the least likely scenario for 2025-26. Multiple other things going in our favor too, but not going to get into details this early.

Also, a reminder to all that there is a 2025-26 discussion thread.

Agreed, I hope Snowman19 is right. I’ll gladly roll the dice with ENSO neutral.

6 hours ago, bluewave said:

The main correlation with storm tracks since 18-19 has been the Pacific Jet. We got a relaxation during 20-21 which allowed the  -NAO -AO to produce a KU BM track on 2-1-21 and another smaller BM event about a week later. Also a brief window in January 22 with the MJO 8 +PNA which favored areas from ACY to ISP to BOS. Just a little wide of the BM for areas a little further west to cash in.

But most other times the Pacific Jet has had an overpowering influence leading to cutters, huggers, and suppressed Southern Stream storm tracks. Plus the stronger Southeast Ridge influence even at times of strong -NAO and -AO intervals which was absent before this decade at times of such strong blocking. So this adds a new conditionality to those older correlations. 

So you need to take more of bigger picture view rather than just looking at the NAO in isolation. If you noticed we finally got something close to a BM track the last few days. The reason the lagged -NAO correlation finally worked now and not over the winter was due to the Pacific Jet backing off a bit from recent months. My guess is that the record warmth in Siberia weakened the gradient between the record SST warmth east of Japan allowing the jet to back off.

 

Unfortunately too late as winter ended 3 weeks ago, but this is good news for next year if it continues.

7 minutes ago, DavisStraight said:

If we were a couple degrees colder more of us could get into the action.

Yeah we needed this setup a month ago

Looks like a classic elevation storm. Some guidance is more aggressive (RGEM/CMC) for eastern areas but I am very skeptical of that outcome in mid April with marginal temps. I would like to be wrong but at this time of year I have an “I’ll believe it when I see it” attitude about modeled snow. 

49 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

IMO an El Niño (even weak) for the fall/winter is looking less and less likely by the day

What ENSO state would you favor right now? I think another La Niña is very possible. Probably wouldn’t be very strong though

13 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

Friday is interesting with  bombing LP Cape Cod bay

Looks like a classic early spring elevation event.

967mb low over the cape

3 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

That is my hope for next year....I think that would be a bullish signal for next winter.

Hopefully it stays weak if a Nino does develop.

7 minutes ago, SnoSki14 said:

+PNA is less favorable for snow chances by this time due to changing wavelengths. 

Not in New England. I am of the opinion that we are getting slammed in the first half of March. 

7 hours ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

We just don’t know when but we know it will? 

Yes, there will be an Archambault event in the Feb 26th-Mar 10th timeframe. The pattern grows much more amplified on the models, and this time there isn’t any blocking which is a good thing. Blocking sucks! I’m sick of the south getting all the snow.

I’m not sure when it will happen, but I do believe we will get an Archambault event before the end of winter. Like Anthony said, something big is going to happen.

8 minutes ago, Prismshine Productions said:

Realistically we got exactly two months left for snow shots... We had that banger last April to statpad remember?

Sent from my SM-S156V using Tapatalk
 

Farther north yeah but not for my area. There are exceptions but usually we are done by late March.

Why are so many of you throwing in the towel? March is a winter month, we also have the rest of Feb. it sucks that the 20th threat went to shit but that isn’t the end.

Even the mid Atlantic might be in trouble with this one. It doesn’t even look like a strong storm anymore, no phasing at all, weak and strung out.

54 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

They did well

You mean Virginia

Yes they did, tossing the gfs/gefs was a mistake. Did way better with this than the Euro and Canadian. AI models did well too. I know I said yesterday we still have a shot but unfortunately things have only gotten worse on the models since then. This threat is cooked

26 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

It's definitely coming back 

I don’t think those 2 foot runs are coming back, but a significant storm is still on the table. If we zoom out and look at where we are right now, most guidance is about 100 miles SE of where we want it at 4 days out. That’s….. not that bad. The issue is those earlier runs got everyone’s hopes up, and it can be tough to let that go. If the models were 200 miles offshore and bumped north over the past 24 hours, despite being in the same spot the mood would be a lot different. 

31 minutes ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

Not me, I'll take this winter over last winter 

Agreed. It hasn’t been very snowy, but it has been cold and snow retention has been good. It actually feels like winter this year. I’d rather have 80% of normal snow, BN temps and consistent snow cover than 110% of normal snow, well AN temps and any snow that falls melts in a few days. Certainly no 14-15 or 10-11, but it’s not a rat in my eyes.

You gotta be fucking kidding me

5 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

Yea true. It’s turrable.

It’s not terrible, but it does have a NW bias. The key takeaway for me is there is a lot of room for error in regards to storm track. I think I would do really well even with the low going over the canal. The key is getting the storm close enough.

Just now, brooklynwx99 said:

it's in the single digits before the low arrives. the antecedent airmass is pristine

Wow, that is true arctic air. What I’m curious about is if a similar longwave pattern to the early Jan threat would work better now. Maybe shorter wavelengths will help?