OSUmetstud

1 hour ago, ORH_wxman said:

He's got a full-on ratter. Those numbers would equate to 30" or less in BOS and 48" or less in ORH. 

raindance becomes rainstorm

August September NAO does have a correlation with Jan Feb (albeit weak). That's why I posted it yesterday.

That plot looks pretty similar to the march forecast from September

https://weather.us/monthly-charts/euro/north-america/anomaly-geopot-500hpa/20190301-0000z.html

1 minute ago, CoastalWx said:

I’ll sell that anomaly in canada. Guidance loves to paint everything in red, given Climate change.

Canadian seems to be the worst that. 500mb anomalies that def leads to cold weather and the 2m temps still looks torchy. 

12 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I wish someone could post the rest D, J, M plots..just keep seeing Feb.

Weather.us updates on the 11th...probably have to wait until then. We get the NMME and the JMA on the 8th for your viewing pleasure. 

14 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

The whole "persistence forecasting" is a lazy approach IMHO...I was told that last season when I kept calling for an epic -NAO fueled ending.

It works until it doesn't-

You don't get to act like youre engaging in fruitful discussion all the while calling someone's method lazy. Plus it wasn't the only reasoning. 

10 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I stated that weak el nino correlates to negative NAO, BUT THERE ARE PLENTY OF EXCEPTIONS.  I don't need evidence of it. I'm also not sure what they NAO from Jun through September has to do with this winter.

You toss the negative NAO years of the 60s and 70s, citing a vague reference to "different atmosphere and climo", then proceed to utilize the Pinatubo modulated 1994 weak ENSO event to support your assertion that negative NAO will not happen?

Okay-

No I'm just starting there are valid reasons to find fault with any supposed analog year. Theres always going to be differences. You can throw out 94-95 and the neither thr 500mb height anomalies nor the surface temperature anomalies change much. I feel pretty confident on a DJFM positive NAO in the means...we've been in a 6 year impressive cycle with that as the CPC graph shows above. The main reason I didn't use the 60s and 70s is being I don't think there will be negative nao like then. I didnt go looking for an argument. I'm not any sort of long range expert. I'm just posting my thoughts, if you don't like them then so be it. 

1 hour ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I don't understand why you entirely discount anything with a negative NAO during a weak el nino near a solar minimum.

I think there's pretty good evidence of an overall positive NAO (it doesn't mean there can't be bouts of negative.) You can use similar rationale to throw out the blockbusters of the 60s and 70s Ninos given the difference of the atmosphere and climo. 

You can look at a season like maybe 86-87 or 94-95 to see evidence of lackluster Atlantic blocking during weak Ninos. 

I don't think any of us are experts on the subject per say...its mostly a stab in the dark. 

I'm going 90-91, 94-95, 02-03, 03-04, 04-05, 06-07, 14-15 for my winter analogs. I don't like anything with negative Naos in the means. Even so, there's a fairly large amount of variation across the data set from winter to winter. 

-Nick

North American snow cover was well above normal on Rutgers for September but Eurasia was closer to normal or even below. 

13 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Maybe it's like last winter and leans negative for a month or so? If I had to WAG, I would lean more positive with maybe a period in the mid to late winter where it goes negative. 

Yeah I can see that. (Hopefully minus the central Atlantic ridge from hell.)

Any thoughts on the NAO? Its been so positive lately basically going back to 2011. The Atlantic SST distribution supports positive in the winter and the Strat temps are very cold from 1 to 10mb. 

El Nino and low solar support negative. 

I was promised death and destruction!

5 minutes ago, Cold Rain said:

And the ICON.  In fact, neither the RGEM and ICON have the SW motion.

Bringing out the big guns. 

Just now, Cold Rain said:

Is a larger eyewall more susceptible to ERCs than a smaller one?  Or does that matter at all? 

The opposite is true actually

1 minute ago, NJwx85 said:

I know where the other data is, but I also didn't think a 3mb increase in pressure from one pass to the next made sense, especially given current IR presentation.

Perhaps this is the start of another expansion in the wind field, thus a temporary relaxation in the pressure gradient. 

Could just bit instrument error (on the first or second dropsonde) I'm not sure what the standard accuracy is. 

1 minute ago, mappy said:

recon flights will always have dropsondes into the eyewall and the eye, it is best to look for those readings when making definitive statements about pressure/wind. they can be found further down on the tropical tidbits recon page for Florence. 

There's always a bit of parallax error on the SAT overlays. 

Just now, NJwx85 said:

They probably just missed the center

It was a 948mb dropsonde. The winds were around 10 kt. 

Storm is very NE quad heavy. Flight level winds are barely hitting 100kts in the other quads. Not true surprising with solid forward motion currently. Looks pretty steady-state despite the improved appearance form last night. 

3 minutes ago, ALhurricane said:

Yes, yes it is. Lol. It’s been a long day...

It's all good

2 minutes ago, Windspeed said:

 

Harvey had exceptional upper atmospheric environmental conditions on approach, a tight vortex and 30-31°C up to the shoreline. Florence is a much larger hurricane. It's not impossible that Florence could make landfall as a Cat 4, it's just not as likely based on slow movement in a less favorable environment.

 

 

I wonder if the NHC will start to acknowledge the less than ideal environment. This storm is undergoing effects beyond the Erc. Im no expert but i l think it's been clear on satellite for much of the day. 

Just now, ALhurricane said:

Good point. May be enough though there where they keep it a 110kt Cat 4 for the Advisory. 

I could see 110 kt for sure. But that's 3 lol. 

3 minutes ago, ALhurricane said:

A dropsonde measured 116kt in the east eyewall. 

Mean lowest 150 m wind doesn't support it. Maybe it's a gust. 

Anyone notice that the whole SW quad had really large 700mb dewpoint depressions? 37 percent RH on the first dropsonde too. 

Gfs pressures are not trustworthy...if anyone wasn't aware.