Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by cbmclean

  1. 35 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

    So explain to me what longwave pattern works in that background state, when even in the old “normal” we needed solidly negative anomalies to snow. 

    The answer is: none.

    Serious question, any idea what the mechanism is for this anomaly pattern?  The mid-latitudes are on fire like its a +++++AO, but the arctic is warm as well, like its a -AO.  I know the root cause, is Lord Voldemort, but I would like to understand the nature of how hit is happening.

  2. 38 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

    than the obvious “we need arctic air” which is and always has been an exceptionally rare event.

    I know you have repeatedly said that MA "should" not need cross-polar flow to get snow, but did you really regularly get "workmanlike" snows with pac puke?  Using the standard airmass type nomenclature (not sure who defines this) I would equate "pac puke" with "maritime polar", "domestic cold" with "continental polar" and cross-polar flow with "continental arctic".  So before was a good bit of MA snow coming with mP airmasses?

  3. 17 minutes ago, poolz1 said:

    I was surprised that he used the ext gefs to make a point about the strength of the SPV.  I mean, a D10 forecast is pretty flimsy when it comes to predicting this stuff let alone 30 days.

    I don't know the dude he is replying to but he is making a point about a D10-15 op run.  Which in itself is flimsy...

    So right now, do we care at all what goes on with the SPV?  I was under the impression it only mattered (good or bad) if it was tightly coupled with the TPV.

  4. 10 minutes ago, jayyy said:

    Or… it’ll show a workable pattern again at 0z tonight emoji23.png

    The GEFS dropped 40” for the DC - Bal Corridor between now and February 3rd less than 48 hours ago. I don’t trust any model from 384 out, ensemble or otherwise. All of the waffling we’re seeing day to day on long range models indicates a pattern shift is definitely coming. I wouldn’t read much into the specifics until we get closer, as we’ve seen a crazy spread in outcomes over the past few days alone

    Certainly.  Just noting the crappy results for that one model on that one run.

    • Like 1
  5. 5 minutes ago, Ralph Wiggum said:

    Seeing lots of chatter recently about how Feb is going to be trash with a raging SER and -PNA. What makes this thinking such a lock? Is it really a 99.9% certainty that Feb will be punted? 

    Well that's classic Nina climo for one reason.  Not sure why Eric Webber was seeming so sure unless part of his campaign to drive NE snow weenies crazy.

  6. 1 minute ago, osfan24 said:

    Hope that isn't the case. Punting all of December and February and the first half of January leaves us with two weeks of prime climo and hail mary's in March.

    I wouldn't say December was punted.  More like we kept fumbling.  The Arctic blast was like a 98 yard run down to the 1 yard line that yielded no points.

    • Like 3
  7. 1 hour ago, pazzo83 said:

    isn't your independent variable here time, so that is what you are using to try to explain the variance in your observed data (snowfall)?  Let's ignore the fact that running a simple linear regression on a time series, especially when there is a cyclical component here (thus the observations are not all IID), is problematic.  But if you are trying to see if a warming base state would be used, you'd think you'd include something reflecting that in your analysis (and not just time).

    Starting off with a linear regression is not unreasonable even if we suspect that the observations are not IID.  I'm not completely sold on the existence of cycles, at least on a decadal scale.  Purely random data can show lots of clumps suggestive of patters which are not really there.  It would be very interesting to put the data through some sort of Fourier analysis to see if there any real periodicity, but I don't have the tools for that.

  • Create New...