OSUmetstud

7 minutes ago, Snow88 said:

So if the eps shows warmth and gefs shows cols always go with the eps?

shut up

4 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Mm, I'm curious what that entails ...  moving average is made to be in error, if the movement is taking place along a non-constant rate of change. Acceleration is noted in the system... too.  But, heh...we're probably ultimately talking about decimals too ..  

I think they need 3 months - so if indeed it's that high than I was incorrect with my original assertion up there that it's not technically there. Below is from CPC's resent pp fwiw -

DESCRIPTION: Warm (red) and cold (blue) periods based on a threshold of +/- 0.5^oC for the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) [3 month running mean of ERSST.v5 SST anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region (5^oN-5^oS, 120^o-170^oW)], based on centered 30-year base periods updated every 5 years.

For historical purposes, periods of below and above normal SSTs are colored in blue and red when the threshold is met for a minimum of 5 consecutive overlapping seasons. The ONI is one measure of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, and other indices can confirm whether features consistent with a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon accompanied these periods.

The latest tri-monthly is 0.7. 

https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

8 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

"standard"? nah...no predilection exists over here in my mind.   I was just using/reporting what they're indicating but if we need to disagree with them...sure. If I had my own buoy network tied into WAN sampling NOI and SOI and thermalcline depth/Kelvin wave distribution ...I'd be better prepared to formulate a discussion. 

I definitely agree with your sentiment in bold though... I covet my own hypothesis which... admittedly, one's supposition doesn't necessitate a collective adherence - haha... But, I'm not entirely certain these ENSO states are being normalized for climate change along the way. If they are...that's great!  If not ...that's comparing against a system of observations gathered middle last century; I might have a problem with the Law of constancy in physics in doing so. 

 

They use anomalies against a moving average, so they do take into account warming oceans. 

I'm not disagreeing with CPC per say, it's just defined by past anomalies so we can't know we're in an El Nino until we've already been in one for some time. Nino region 3.4 has hovering near +1c anomaly for like 3 months running. 

1 minute ago, Isotherm said:

 

 

Yes - this is what I was posting a few days ago re: the stratospheric amplification of the MJO signal, hence the propensity for increased warmth/cutters over the Dec 20-Jan 5 period. The MJO is actually in phase 6 right now. RMM plots suffering from rw/kw interference. The ECMWF has been attemping to send the wave into the null phase since p 3, and has been correcting since. The stratospheric driving augments the MJO signal, and there's no physical reason for the ewd propagation to cease. 

The potential threat period around the 8th-9th will feature a phase 8 MJO by that point.

 

I figured that was driving the awful look that the EPS has in the 11-15 day. GEFS looks a lot better. 

That solutions is really close to the 12z GFS. It's basically all southern stream. I'd guess temps are really marginal in SNE given such a similar H5 look. 

3 minutes ago, dryslot said:

Would have like to seen the panel between hr 120 and 144 on the 12z Ukie, But it looked like the low moved up the coast.

I could see that working out for northern areas. 

in reference to the MJO stuff. Eric Webb says the GFS can outdual the ECMWF re: MJO when there is a high amplitude wave that originates in the maritime continent. It doesnt make sense that such a high ampltiude wave would suddenly die like the ECWMF shows, anyway. 

2 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Really ... phase 6

I guess you could get warm profiled events.. But, more commonly.. we find that where there is clouds and precipitation, cooler anomalies take place - just a matter of degree ( n'yuk n'yuk) 

The composites found here, http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/Composites/Temperature/  ... use "DJF"

...as we can see, clearly show phase 6 as perhaps the warmer of all ... That fact alone can be used to back us into an assumption. Namely, that phase 6 should be consistent with lower storm frequency - in other words, not pretty good.  

I suppose though that El Nino's are relatively rare compared to the longer termed rest state of the data ... otherwise, we'd always be in El Nino - duh.  So, yes it is possible that being in an El Nino may alter the results of that inference. Or asking in a 'nother e-zombie watered down way: ... bad for storms unless its phase 6 in El Nino? 

Therein ... we don't even know what this El Nino really is at this point... All we have is this Modoki-ness and a prediction... technically, we are not "in" an El Nino if logic were any use. Here is CPC's (fwiw) most recent update published back on December 10 ...

"  ENSO-neutral conditions are present.* Equatorial sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are above average across most of the Pacific Ocean. The patterns of convection and winds are mostly near average over the tropical Pacific. El Niño is expected to form and continue through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2018-19 (~90% chance) and through spring (~60% chance).  "

I'm not a poet laureate but that doesn't "sound" impressively in El Nino at this time.  So, I don't think we can really assess phase 6 above in either context.

 

John, by this standard you can barely ever say you're in an El Nino. We have to wait for 5 consecutive trimonthlies of 0.5 or higher anomalies in 3.4 for it to be declared. It's dictated by past anomalies which in some respect is kinda silly. By most objective measures the SST and the atmospheric have been in El Nino type state for awhile now. 

1 minute ago, OceanStWx said:

I see OSUmetstud beat me to it.

I should've read ahead one more page...

Its all good

Just now, CoastalWx said:

Oh I know, but to think this one has a cold bias that’s rather siggy....ugh.

Yeah it is pretty significant. I thought the warm bias on the op was only in  the boundary layer. 

Just now, CoastalWx said:

You can see it in the weenie snow algorithms too. It’s quite obvious. Good to see we ****ed up another model. 

The GFS wasn't good to begin with lol

Just now, Typhoon Tip said:

You know ... ( I love a good conspiracy theory) ... one wonders ... The operational GFS has spent the last 18 months with an embarrassing torch bias in the boundary layer... now this?

Seems a bit "interestingly compensating" huh?   But maybe it's intended to fix that and isn't so secretive either. 

A friend of mine who is a NOAA contractor was specifically working on that op bias over the past year or two. 

I mean I guess it's good we don't have to worry about those dry adiabatic boundary layers with heavy precip anymore. 

The whole 1000-500 layer runs cold. So it's not just a surface thing. 

Second image should be p1000 but same difference. 

11 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

Still looking for something other than anecdotal data on the cold bias

Its in the emc model verification. It runs the cold at the surface compared to the op GFS and the other models. 

21 minutes ago, Bostonseminole said:

not been following the FV3, any good ? replacing the current GFS right?

I believe Scott uses it as tp. 

25 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

The NAO dipped to begin the month.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.shtml

Maybe I should not have used the term "blocking", as that implies sustainability, but I meant negative NAO. It was pretty clear from the December narrative that i did not expect it to persist.

I mean im pretty sure it averaged positive during the first two weeks. There's a significant rise there into late week 1/early week 2 of the month. Trying to pin down the intraseasonal stuff is pretty difficult anyway. You could even argue that the confluence from the positive NAO was a contributor in the futility in the seemingly good pattern. 

The cold in early December wasn't via NAO blocking. The month averaged positive. 

A bit of thunder in West Seneca

Just now, ORH_wxman said:

NYC is typically not the best place to be to try and cash in even if this turns into a SWFE...they need it really cold on the front end with the high further west...very little CAD there in the midlevels.

metfan violently disagrees 

1 hour ago, ORH_wxman said:

RGEM has its moments....but it was on fire in 2015....but it did well in events like the 12/23 ice storm last year...really honed in on that. Can't remember the last time the GGEM scored a medium range coup though.

GGEM is better in phasing in ocean lows, while gfs will be out to sea. RGEM is a better model than both gfs and nam inside 36 hours imo. 

3 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

Thanks. I only know where to get the GEFS from the CPC. Where can I harvest the ECWMF?

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/CLIVAR/clivar_wh.shtml

19 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

Is phase 6 good for us?

Not really, but the GEFS guidance weirdly brings it strongly into 5/6 whereas the ecmwf and other agencies keep it lower amplitude and faster moving into the more favorable phases. 

We were chatting about pivotalwx yesterday. I've noticed on the rdps and gdps soundings, which are cool obviously, they don't have omega beyond a few mandatory levels. I've noticed this before with rdps grib 2 data set, it only has 850/700/500/250 vertical velocity available.