Typhoon Tip

I wonder if it might be worth considering these QBOs at relative values - comparing +1, vs +10, vs +20 ... -1 QBOs ...etc, to the solar min, the PDO/AMO multi-decadal oscillation and ENSO. I keep reading 'a +QBO during this' ... or aa -QBO during that' ... but it seems one should not auto-applicate the QBO just based on whether it is positive or negative. As we know, the QBO is a top down mass oscillation phenomenon... where +20 equates to a strong westerly wind flux, .. +1 is a weak... Moreover the index moves from +20 to +1 to -1 and -20 ... and back, repeating every 20 to 36 months or so.. Is a +5 QBO during a solar minimum the same correlation result as a +5 during a solar max... ? It's obviously hugely complex - requiring a team of Aspergers types with a penchants for pattern recognition to ferret out, granted...but, it seems quite questionable to me to just apply a +7 QBO to a solar min that is extraordinarily strongly negative. This latter may "overcome" the anti-correlation of +7 with SSW ( for example) and drive either a SSW anyway...or, maybe it is an SSW with a slow downwelling... I mean, jesus - there's a science fiction novel there that is actually too plausible to just be pure fiction! Or not. Earlier this year ( I think it was a 2nd time this has ever happened ) the QBO abruptly broke cycle.. It slipped back negative as January turned page and continued, only resuming positive over this summer..and still is so.. Boo ya! But will it remain that way... Since 2015, we've suddenly registered two of these occurrences ...which never happened since the 1950s. This adds uncertainty ... ouch

I almost wonder if the season either coughs suspicious features or we end up with designations quite late... The frequency of DJF, 'is it last season or the new season,' type occurrences has increased since 2000, globally ... I am unaware of any research into causality but I wonder - could the expanding HC have something to do with this ...

mM... Something strange is going on in the QBO though. I'm suspicious of using that metric as a leading 'clean' or coherent indicator (statistically) for the SSW stuff... for that matter, the overall (+)(-)AO tendencies. It's tough - we are statistically in the 2 to 3 year gap and these cavities in SSW activity typically load-in in these windows, but having the QBO now flopping around for the first time in history - uh... This obviously caveats the indicators. One argues we are likely to get a warm wave event or two this winter; while the other has broken down. I don't think this latter aspect can be skipped over in any usage or attempt to use the QBO - The easterly phase of the QBO is somewhat more correlated to the advent of short, sharp, clean and (crucially) downward propagating warming events - the latter aspect being important in the time-lag -AO mode. When the warming leading to the ensuing -AO take place, the mode can last just a couple of weeks, or the rest of the hosting winter season - there are examples of variable length once the -AO kicks in. So what's up with the QBO ? The regular 24 to 36 month periodicity spanning the last 70 years of the observations has recently twice failed for the first time(s). In plain English ... the QBO reversed when it should not have. And by that, the predictable nature of timing the oscillation/reversal in top-down modeling was thrown out of whack ..certainly is a 'woah' moment, rattling confidence of the QBO as a dependable indicator. What/why it broke down? ...enter supposition here [ ] But, this 2nd event appears to be taking place now... The previous was back during 2015-2016 winter ... However, that event shows up as a greater numerological variance, swinging hugely from positive to negative phase with little or no warning. Right now...this is appears to be taking place more subtle... with variance at shallower in absolute values: https://psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/qbo.data Also...as an afterthought, there is a bright correlative relationship in the data between the MJO phases and the AO... MJO "might" even be used as an apparent leading mode of the AO... whereby the phase 2 thru 6 that are strengthening tends to lead the onset of the +AO, and vice versa on there other side of the phase diagram . This is thought to be the case because 2-6 tend to correlate with stronger subtropical ridging ...and that strengthens the westerlies over top where the circulation join the westerly main mass transport... Thus torque balancing --> weakens cyclogenesis at middle latitudes. Contrasting, the other side... robuster cyclogenesis results, increasing the ambient lower Ferrel Cell easterly trades in the lower boundary of the winter-time PV ( 45 to 70 N) ...and that means the the PV is being stressed/weakens... a.k.a -AO. I personally believe the recent observations wrt to the HC also play a role in enhancing the +AO, because: .. intuitively, the 2-6 phases of the MJO are probably getting a large/super synoptic scale constructive interference pattern by the current +HC ... which offers an early clue as to +AO winter ... experimental. Which is interesting, because the solar minimum going back hundreds of years of reanalysis ..certainly correlates reasonably well if not fantastically so, with the -AO ...again...we're stuck with diametric signals here. With the QBO acting flakey in an unprecedented way... the AO being stuck positive during an opposing solar mimimum correlation that has been pretty sterling as a -AO correlation ( but is not..>) ... and the HC ... plausibly if not likely muting some of the ENSO effects due to smothering gradient dispersal inside the HC boundary ...etc... The snarky cynic in me thinks this winter is a big huge steaming pile of CRAP shoot...and throwing enough shit against the wall is going to make someone look like an "accidental" genius But then I recollect and gather around some form or hope of rationalism and simply state that ... it's fair to question the hitherto "traditional" institution of correlations, because the geophysical dynamics are changing, and that " synergistically" is altering world right before our eyes ... But it's all supposition and tongue in cheek,... I'm not here to refute or impugn anyone's effort - just fwiw ... But there is truth in these concerns

I posit some of the issue with NINA anomalies ( perceived as such...) may be because the easterlies are entering a new climate paradigm, where they are stronger ... In this idea, these lower latitude mass flux anomalies are a compensating for the general large scale circulation that is featuring ( empirical at that ... ) mid latitudes jet velocity anomalies that are integrating a faster planetary troposphere in the westerlies ... Conservation has to diverge that flow some where, some how - propose ..some goes N; the rest goes S. And in the latter sense, that mass ends up arcing back west into the trade belt. This positive flux sourcing is augmenting the easterlies. I'm just not sure if this is cartoon/ACME Industries logic ( b-bunny road-runner reference ) ... but, so long as large Coriolis torque is balanced and the mass motion is not exceeding that force - I don't see how it that explanation can be dismissed out of hand. If that hypothesis is true ... it's not then a tremendously difficult leap of insight to suspect sea-surface stressing from the east is also enhancing ...as a base-line state. And the latter bold is crucial as a distinction between it, and the La Nina - which it can certainly mimic/cast off that impression of La Nina. Compounding further, there may in fact "BE" a concurrent La Nina super synoptic forcing in play - the former hypothetical would thus [ probably ] constructively interfere and enhance the illustration of it - ... But not seeing aspects of La Nina behave the way they should, may be betraying that a weak La Nina is really what is there ...if perhaps getting dressed up to be something more than it is by the effects of a "new" base-line of strengthening lower tropospheric easterly trades. fascinating - ... But this same effect may also account for why recent El Ninos haven't been presenting as proficiently in global patternization of the westerlies/R-wave distribution as it has notably across many decades of the past ( prior to ~ 2000... ). No...it's not 0 - as in not observable at all...just an attenuation and lowering of the expectation/somewhat failure along typical climate pathways.

I got a question for those individuals ...or anyone else, posting precipitation anomaly products... Are those 'melted' equiv. ? I suspect so... for science utility, snow totals really don't mean as much for climate as the precipitable water - which either snow or rain is equally rooted... which thus requires a standard mass format... Liquid is that rest state - so... melt the snow, and call it all rain? I don't typically ever put much stock in those precipitation products because I noticed in the 1990s ...then more tacitly during the early 2000's...any prediction, no matter how touted the source, was 100 % always wrong ... hands thrown... It's never f'n right folks... ever - and that may be some frustration there ... fine, but the skill, at least from what I have been exposed to, just doesn't validate the effort. I may not be completely right? - this isn't a declarative - Just from what I've seen over the years and years and years of it ...it's on par with the Farmer's f'um Almanac if you ask me... Which ... I suspect their extra top secret recipe ...is really nowadays in modernity woken up to science by merely employing what everyone else does. They have to be... unless they have some pulsing, glowing emerald that hums and spines information lighting to some sort of mystical console that then tells them their forecast fantasy ... But then again, they'd have a bone to pick with that god because that god must be a f'n dumbasstic moron then because the FA sucks asshole too - My advice...? Don't .... I'd suggest going with temperature alone ...and figuring that whatever falls, it'll edge heavier than the 50 or 100 year mean - relative to phenomenal circumstances - due to GW -attributed ambient increases in PWAT feeding anything that's animate in the atmosphere....

James .. they may vary slightly (or not...) from agency to agency but the Climate Diagnostic Center labels them as: Pacific North America Pattern (PNA) [(15-25N, 180-140W)-(40-50N, 180-140W)+(45-60N, 125W-105W)-(25-35N, 90W-70W)] North Atlantic Oscillation(NAO) [(35-45N, 70W-10W) - (55-70N, 70W-10W)] Western Pacific Oscillation(WPO) [(25-40N, 140E-150W) - (50-70N, 140E-150W)] Eastern Pacific Oscillation(EPO) [(20-35N, 160W-125W) - (55-65N, 160W-125W)] (Couresy: https://psl.noaa.gov/forecasts/reforecast2/teleconn/ ) However, any variances between agency definitions would likely not reflect a difference in correlation significance - meaning...doesn't really matter. Note, due to the recent upgrades in the GEFs ensemble system, CDC's coverage/calculations necessarily need to be reconstructed; however, I shared a correspondence with personal at that office recently who indicated that there is no present funding for such an operation - therefore, public URL access to CDC - derivatives is discontinued pending further notice. Nevertheless, these are the domain spaces that were employed for the GEFs, and though I cannot confirm this with certainty .. it is likely that any new system won't change these geographical areas - it is the data density that is the cause for the product suspension and revamp necessity. The ECMWF and/or UKMET ( super blend..etc) may or may define their domain regions the same way.

NCEP reported that winter that season, it was not well coupled until very late in the winter months ...don't blame messenger ... I remember the pattern over N America not resembling the El Nino very well - and when I read that...I was like, well yeah. - not to mention...it was a supposedly an off the chart hot EL NINO and it had trouble coupling in their estimation. I don't believe those MEI number reveal the ENSO was driving the global patternization though - you can tuck those MEI numbers into a maelstrom dominated by super circumstances that mute its existence. The MEI is still just a band within narrow latitudes, well inside the HC's termination latitudes with the westerlies - which is where the pattern is defined over top all that. MEI may have been coupled ... but the atmosphere around it was not demonstrating its exertion - that's the point. And, the climate zones were being less impacted, concertedly, too - again...that's not me. Also, I wouldn't claim coupling was not a factor... It's a matter of how much so - ... as usual. There are no 1::1 correlations... maybe what was once a .64::1 correlation is now .38::1 thing ...

If it is coupled ... sure... But expanding HC doesn't mean it can't couple ...just that thermodynamically in an oceanic-atmospheric couple environment, if the warm HC does manage to couple with a warm ocean, the gradient where the HC terminates with the westerlies is still N of where the coupled region was ... prior to 2000 and so forth... But a warm expanded HC makes it harder for coupling because the thermodynamics is differentiated less - If/when the latitude of the HC terminations/gradient N, that alters the R-wave structures around the hemisphere ...either way - But during the great super Nino that happen 4 or 5 clicks ago now... ( was that 2014 ?) NCEP's ENSO publications routinely stated ...all year long, that the atmosphere was not appearing to be actually coupled to the ENSO state - pretty much that is 95% quotable string as they even stated it... Finally...toward the third week of February, that seemed to change - and they even said, 'finally... ' But the HC structure is not being dictate by ENSO...that's not true - nope. The HC is expanding ... because warm total atmosphere stores more water vapor in gaseous form, and the tropics are storing more thermally - the ENSOs are engulfed inside that bubble. It's really like said bubble used to expand( contract) by warm(cool) ENSO's ... but since the HC expanded beyond the ENSO belt ... it's not clear the HC is responding - as NCEPs noted and these evidence of breakdown climatology have also been materializing... Outside of my hypothesis these are true ..but they fit -

Anyway, jokes and speculation aside... Though I have my convictions emerging about that other shit ...I think in the meantime we have a N-stream dominate winter by appearance. Here's the trouble though - I don't know if STJ's are also problematic in an expanded HC thing ? Because ... seems with the gradient being pushed/relocated N of 1700 - 1980 ... more so since 2000 ... that starts exceeding those latitude where we see that particular feature - the impetus behind this reasoning is that for one ...I am some kind of catastrophic loser with no life ... why am I f'n typing this crap ... but two, gradient in the troposphere derives the axis of westerlies/Jet streams by classical convention -

Sure - if one assumes the modoki this and the NINO 1+2 that are still AS effectual in forcing ... maybe - sure... I'm not here to make declaratives and aver these hypotheses need preclude the scientific process or nothin' lol - I'm just saying, Modoki shmokey ... personally? I hunch ENSO over all, thus certainly idiosyncrasies contained within, are being rendered less forcible to the entirety of the planetary integral. Oh,... I bet this is the insight of the young Met century that chaos will now go out of its way to happenstance/circumstantially make it only look less true by metaphysically constructing a dildo... I mean a winter that actually fits the predisposition. Everyone goes seeee ... lowers their guard, and the oceans stop C02 fixing and the extinction event is complete - muah ahahaha oh, sorry - wrong subject

Mmm ...yeah, wasn't gonna chime in on that but ... that seems to me to be a simple matter of 'momentum storage' ... Other intermediary obtruding forces can mask or mute (transiently) those forces that have a longer integrate curve/weight. It's like ENSO ( prior to 2000 I should add ) was like a revolving door, and summer temporarily holds the door against the motor, but soon as the kid stops f'n around and playing with the door, it resumes it rotation - This is a useful intellectual exercise - it sort of adds support to what I was just talking about - pretty much exactly, too - What does summer do to the hemisphere? It neutralizes gradients ( in general...) the ambient gradients are lessened...the flow unwinds and becomes more nebular because the velocities are less ( A is not longer motile toward B ) ... and that hides the ENSO by cutting it's integral forcing - It's almost a circumstantial proof right there ... if we extend the HC beyond the kiss-point of the ENSO with the westerlies,... that's sort of cutting it's integral forcing ability. Same thing in principle.

Maybe it is because the ENSO SST distribution is no longer AS usurping as it used to be in the total integrated machinery of the planetary circulation result. As an extension ... and possible connection to GW, coincidences suck in physics... usually, there's causality connection; and it appears more so than merely coincidence that recent ENSO events, having not been registering as impactful along/at normal climate pathways as they were prior to the recent empirically proven GW acceleration ..., is just such an annoying coincidence ...which by the way, the advent of those failures has been concurrent with recency - My hypothesis is that the expansion of the tropical/subtropics found here : https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/5/ ... is at least partial in that causality connection. The longer version: The idea of that expansion of the HC isn't my personal work - so ...maybe start considering that ( not you personally but in general - ). But, changing the previous ocean-atmospheric modal exchange is as good as any initial educated/existentially rooted guess. It's just to gin up a scientific discussion if not actually process therein, to formulating theory as any I've heard... Which, unfortunately ...isn't a lot - and I admit to that frustrating me. These are non-arbitrary substantive observations being made by a much larger bevy of sources other than that just being made by me ... A ... flows toward B. There's a gap between just being statistically/numerically reliant, and understanding that gradient is everything in Universe. If there is no movement of A --> B ...entropy is infinite and there is nothing? This isn't mere philosophy. All actions and our ability to sense " reality" itself, are because of cause and effects an essentially infinite solution of forces attempting to get to a rest state... That includes both why the wind blows, and... one's ability to sense the wind blowing. This adolescent truism seems to escape us when it comes to the teleconnectors and the statistics; when we assume +1 NAO means this in the atmosphere for us, that sort of unwittingly acts as though that +1 is a force in itself. It's not. It's a result over time then averaged. But the nature of A is no longer stable. And that changes how A moves toward B ... That change = seasonal forecast pieces of shit for not seeing it. SO... tfwiw - ... If the HC band expands above the previous interface of the ENSO ocean-atmospheric coupled region, that is a whopper change in how A relates to B ( which in the context, 'B' refers to the domain outside the ENSO o/a realm) .. It's like ( haha ) a stable marriage. It's runnin' along fine, but then B becomes an alcoholic ... an abusive one at that... Meanwhile A is still doing what A always did ( in this metaphor, oscillating between warm(cool) phases of ENSO), but the changes in B ... means the nature of the marriage has changed - what we do when we ignore expanding HCs and GW and all this shit ...is we assume that B can be an abusive asshole alcoholic and it won't change the nature of their relationship. WRONG I admit to having noticed gradient saturation and higher velocities/R-wave stretching and progressive patterning bias over the last 15 to 20 years as becoming more discerned over the course ... but, this science publication above shows that said reality outside of said frame, is ALSO onto this - and you should be too This regressive reliance is not showing evolution or learning ... I realize that's hard to do in a pathology that is hardened across generations of other consistencies...but therein is the problem. We've lost the consistency - I don't intend this to be an admonishment ... people really need to start questioning the % forcing capacitance of the ENSO's longer duration oceanic-atmospheric coupled teleconnector when gradient changes how it integrates.

It's an interesting turn of phrase 'recency bias' I know you don't mean anything by it ...but 'bias' tends to imply an attitude against something, particularly in the parlance of an internet "water cooler" social media diversion - haha... but yeah ... I like to rely upon trend quite a bit. Trend awareness is equally fair as a word choice, and is actually a wise factor in any deterministic aspect of weather forecast - range and domain notwithstanding. Particularly, when a given trend can be rooted ...or at in the least suspected as being, causally linked to x-y-z ..etc. In this case? I think there are reasons - valid - to assess the trend of recent winters may repeat? And I mean to put the "?" on that.

You can actually see that in the 'art' of weather graphics when peering over the 500 mb v- ...The positive vorticities swaths begin to curve or bow such that the southern ends lag back SW... That's absorption happening. Here's an example of the resulting positive sloping... random interval off the 12z GFS to illustrate the point:

No arg from me... I said just yesterday or the day before whenever that was that this might be a good year for NJ Model lows ... Miller B's fits in with those. We just gotta make sure the ambient flow doesn't end up with too may hypsometric lines ... because that is synonymous with huge wind as a base-state. That's bad for S/W's because their local wind maxes get absorbed -

can you run that regression for prior to, then post ... 1990... say .... or 2000, separately ? granted the sample set size is not inspiring much confidence in the latter interval - I still want to see the result. you've got all instances in there ...judging by the shear number in the scatter plot ( eye-ballin' ) that's like all ENSO deviation demarcation events going back ... I dunno but a long ways? I don't think the ENSO states are "as effectual" in modulating the winter patterns since 2000 as they were prior to that for a bevy of reasons that I've opined ad nauseam and don't wanna get into at the moment... But, it may also be that there's just not enough scatter plot ballast since 1990/2000 in to be of much use either - hands cuffed by prediction vs having to wait on verification in that sense I suspect the warm ENSO events have more memory than the other way around, particularly prior to 2000. But, because the other way around is more likely the base state in having "normal" unimpeded trade wind sea-surface stressing, that tends to keep the NINO 3.4, 1 and 2 regions less than EL NINO ... The base canvas would thus 'erase' the modest NINA events by virtue of merely absorbing its signature into the ongoing circulation of the hemisphere in those scenarios... NINOs however, might be more observably lingering ... just a hunch but also a digression -

Yeah in his defense... some sort of training warm frontal wedge convection appears to be going on in his vicinity https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/13/world/un-natural-disasters-climate-intl-hnk/index.html

it's too much - sure... Glad you picked up on the sarcasm - tough to deliver that ... I do think the world is warming and I do fear thresholds and so forth but come on - look how the models took the planet of Venus and crash-landed it into the Pacific Basin ...it's like minus 10 SD La Nina which is outside the theoretical bounds of Terrain physics or something ahahaha

...Since you asked me and care so very deeply how my opinion affects you and all ... I think this could be an N-stream dominated winter, but one that wends its way to (climate signal + average cold)/2 = ... take a f'in guess how that parlays snow... it's like a N-stream dominate winter superimposed over a planetary hockey-stick (denying ...) climate modality that doesn't end well for winter enthusiasts ... oh, not for decades. Okay, as we know in climate science, it doesn't move on a predictable slope though. I'm starting to wonder if might cross over a threshold ... years before Will's take on things that a 'no winter scenario' here won't set into until beyond the visible universe of our life spans -- how? because we arrogantly ( as human tendency ) keep expecting a slower deal merely because our egos get in the way of the fact that just because we can't imagine horror unfolding tomorrow, that means it can't happen. But, threshold happen by breaking at stress points... and boom! as they say in Ebonics, 'we be f'ed' Not to be alarming or nothin' but Mad Max's setting was the year 2021 muah hahahaha. The U.N. isn't holding back today ... 'the earth will become an uninhabitable hell to millions' .. Somewhere between those two futures lurks the inevitability smearing of our Currier&Ives portrait of winters - ...maybe

The obvious ? that's a global warming depiction there ...when every single guidance source has an unbalanced warm/cool ratio ... that's a warming world - sorry.

My lawn actually greened up about three or four weeks ago when that last convection ( prior to this recent macroburst event ) came through... We were actually straw lawn beige ...then, we got an inch.5 in a two thunderstorms on the same day... and within 3 days there were new green blades coming up and since... it's green. It's never been really very reflective of a significant deficit here in the Nashoba Valley, but.. in fairness, I have had a convective season here. I was under something like 8 t-storm warnings and 2 tor-warnings ... No tors verified but we had big wind and lightning cut up rains on at least half those t-storm warnings. Granted, convection tends to bonanza locales while boning regions... agreed, so this area was probably lucky in that regard. The small stream just down the road that is very seasonal rain readily responsive was actually dry enough to walk without wetting foot other years when the region was only yellow in patches by the Monitoring folks. This year, it's still managed small amounts throughout -

November 2019'S NAO averaged negative by a click and a half SD ... and then in the first week of Dec, as the index began modulating positive toward a December destined to a modest +.25 to .5 SD, ...it was right in there most of us acquired pretty much 70 or 80 % of our yearly snow ballast. We seemed to double that in morning frosts through late March from that point forward. The rub on that was that said event was not 121" of snow - lol But, the early and deep polar index ( NAO ) last year was off-set by the AO by a whole month. Interestingly...according to CPC ( https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/monthly.ao.index.b50.current.ascii.table ) the AO carved out a deep January, when the NAO was positive. That's interesting... Because those two domains share/over-lap a consider amount of their geographical area, so having the AO manage a -1.5 SD while NAO was positive in change, ... that's really stressing the odds there... The CDC's correlation table has the AO and NAO positively correlated by some .7 ...which for atmospheric phenomenon is quite indicative. Yet, they found a mid winter butt bang status like (-1.5 SD AO)( +.5 NAO) ? Just sort of cynically ... I'm inclined to think our misgivings about 2019-2020's winter as an entertainment gestalt might be related to that rareness... EDIT this is wrong - I miss aligned the columns - sorry ugh. They were better matched afterall ... = December 2019 was doomed after that first week, but the month salvaged by virtue of actually having the first week's snow/storminess take place. So what I am getting at is an aside point along the way of this discussion; since the year 2000 ( as a notably observable trend) with either snow, or...patterns conducive to snow ( that latter may actually open up the totals to a bigger number but is subjectively debatable popsicle headaches stuff ) has been been recurrent themes in autumns. I see it unfolding in the GEFs/ tele's ...and the operational GFS ... yet again. The last cycle of GFS has 516 DM thickness across the NP on October 18!!! That's just not normal...sorry... But, it may not happen? But the fact that the model keeps doing it...and, we have in fact almost all but grown accustomed to if not expecting our snow in October ( ludicrous by any imaginative standard prior to the year 2000) ...I think it's all connected. And it matters... because... the NAO blocking of November last year went on to NOT do shit for winter... It was not correlated to winter at all at least in that one shimmering example. Yet, the AO...which was positive in October and Nov aggregates, went demonstratively opposite. It's not just noisy...it's a damn din and polar indexes in autumn were excessively negatively correlated in the one example last year. My most recent thought on this winter is a n-streamer ...

Purely anecdotal ( ...though my convictions are "observationally" rooted - lol ..) but I don't see a useful correlation to the actual weather patterns is the thing... Now ... obviously 'blocking' is a distinction of patternization ... But, when time is introduced, nah. Not by frequency for either restoration and/or modulation tendencies when comparing Octobers to their ensuing DJF of any given year. It's noise in other words... 30 days of noise in October "might" contain orientations that equal or bear some resemblance to fractals embedded in the noise of 90s days. What happens to November in that - I mean... it's like ( to me ) arbitrary when we start doing that... may as well compare April 13th's 6 years later to October 12th's ... aha! Pointing out a rather obvious circumstantial concept: 30 days is long enough that a blip for a week, or even two weeks of October blocking(no blocking) may occur; but then 90 days is an even longer...thus, much more likely chance that either of those circumstances may be ephemerally observed - think about it this way ... a progressive pattern tendency may go through a 'relaxation' - well, that relaxation by virtue of needing to go the other way to actually achieve relaxation may mean 5 days of transient -EPO(-AO)-NAO in there...or even two week's worth of it...before the the next 40 days of progressive winter ruining piece of shitness sets in... What? do we say that was a correlation because say, there was a typhoon over the western Pacific back on October 10 early that autumn that happened to recurve ...building a height response over the Aleutian Basin --> brief NW flow downstream over western Canada ? It's too much of a stretch to suggest those disparate moving parts have any kind of direct or even indirect causal connection ... So in simple terms ... yeah - "weak" puts it maybe even too strongly if you ask me. I think this is a simple matter of 'conditioning' ... Circumstantially, if there is a 100+ winter snow year, the antecedent autumn sticks out in memory ... because as part of the human condition, we seek and create patterns to describe everything we see in nature. It's why we discovered ( or invented - jury's still out on that..) mathematical rules, and language to convey the mechanics. Add artistic expression to that... it's all creating patterns from the nebularity of reality... blah blah ...that's an infinitely deep well of philosophy ... But, on point, a big snow year happens rare enough, that the Octobers that preceded it offer an easy guess-vector. But unfortunately, the age -old statistical argument of that not being a substantial enough data density to offer a high confidence ... screams at us. Top 20 years of snow and cold and ... winter cinema in general... is 20 Octobers - wooooh! 20 Octobers out that last 300 million years since the break up of Pangea sent Europe and Africa sailing away to the east and created the distinction of eastern N/A... It doesn't automatically preclude the possible correlation useful, ... that is true. But the convention of using statistics, which "correlating" is ... And that requires that the entire course of discussion does not require anyone reading as much as I have typed over it just now... haha. But, they say there is a modest 'negative' ... okay - maybe that is just because there are only a handful of years where the signal was just planetary scale, thus large and immovable and lapsed longer than typical pattern gestation...into the ensuing DJF. .. I would almost suggest that aggregating Oct and Nov might have more statistical correlative just based on these weighting concepts -

Strongest easterly jet phenomenon in the lower to mid troposphere along and S of the 30th parallel ..due to the strongest HC in observational Meteorological history ... augmenting the NINA state. ...mm possible. I do get the feeling ..at least wonder, if the the "global La Nina" story is not as emphatic as the SST due to exaggerated low level easterly stressing giving the latter a PR goose. It may not be a La Nina in the integral nearly as strongly as those SST anomalies ...meaning considering the total hemispheric interstitial factors that in whole, drives the ENSO states along... Simply put, maybe it's a weak to moderate integrated La Nina on whole, but with a low level trade wind exaggerated SST distribution contained within ... Never be able to separate those two - or at least 'good luck.' Chicken vs egg headache too - I think we're having a northern stream dominated winter ... and that is super-imposing over the extended HC latitude, where the layover is a positive feedback. We we may at times even observe the 'faux' STJ from ...or just a split into Canada/west...when the PNA tries to lapse .. But in those scenarios we're merely splitting the N -stream; southern component ends up with an mixed/ ice storm deal as the main storm profile threat when it does. And, ...lots of height lines and winds as a canvased look. This may be a good year for NJ model lows ... '86 Novie types...

Oh sure - wasn't intending to mean we can't use climate ... my skepticism triggers at low observation of change I suppose. Just to reiterate for anyone following ... it's a matter of how fast the climate is changing in assessing how obsolete the past has become - We are right ...we are to date talking about 1 degree this and a lot of decimal modulations. That doesn't seem like much? By convention of numerology ( lol ) ... the # 1 is a small digit. But I would caution, therein is risk ...small numbers don't mean small changes to a system - particularly if said system deals with the machinery of a planetary systemic scale, and the endless polynomial terms influencing the synergistic outcome. It may in fact take ginormous change in a system guided by both positively and negatively compensating forces, to actually register a single degree of change in that system - but the boundary of change is being stretched ...will it snap? And, that ginormous change then is like having held back a historic flood with an outmoded dam. The climate is said to be 'changing' faster than the early climate change science predicted it would. Threshold mechanics comes into play as well.. I mean, we may be pushing decimals, then boom ...flash 10 pts .... you don't know. I don't know. We are in unprecedented waters in terms of Human influence in the geophysical environment of the planet. That much is empirical and cannot be argued - the anthropogenic C02 contribution, when added to the normal geological processes, sum to the biggest flux ever - unless that conclusion's been veraciously shown to not be true. Can we imagine ( then ) if we add Siberian permafrost locked Methane to the party - ho man. For all we know, there is lag in response and as the momentum for change itself gets going, we haven't seen thus felt the punch of it yet ... Even using sophistication of ice-coring and trapped-gas chemistry this, and isotope that ... those efforts are reanalyzing past climate change events that were not triggered by that which has ever happened before - to me that gets dubious quickly. So in that same vein/philosophy .. we're trying to use seasonal snow behavior from .proverbial .. 1948 datasets ? heh I may also have a personal bias in the cause-and-effect-relationship observation. In the last 30 years, we are hockey-sticking climate change, ...decimals or not. And in that time, we are seeing suddenly some 60 to 70% of Octobers with at least a chance for synoptic snow and a cornucopia of global outrage for enter alarming observation here [ ]. I think we can use climate of course...but I have that caveat emptor and asterisk sort of in play when I do -