Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,514
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    CHSVol
    Newest Member
    CHSVol
    Joined

Winter Outlook 2016


40/70 Benchmark

Recommended Posts

I read it thoroughly. You mentioned solar and the QBO as potential reasons why the SAI failed last year, and that the lesson learned was to give them greater consideration. But then you stated that although the QBO could again be hostile to -N/AO this year, you didn't give it much weight because there isn't enough information on it. My opinion is that the magnitude of the index's failure last year has to be given some consideration, and if solar and/or QBO were to blame then they could have a significant effect this year as well. Just from a timing perspective, if there was an unaccounted-for variable that interfered with the signal last year, then this year would seem to have an elevated chance of it reoccurring just due to the proximity to last year and the chance of the variable still existing in an interfering state. It is possible for us to agree to disagree about it without questioning the other's reading comprehension skills...

 

Regarding the formatting, look at the word "driver" that ends the first sentence of the first paragraph: "drive" is on the first line, and "r" starts the second line. Or the second line of the first paragraph which ends with the letter "h" and continues on the next line with "owever".

You said that you read it on your mobile, and I don't know about you, but I would have missed something trying to read a piece that extensive on a mobile device.

I wasn't questioning your reading comprehension skills.

Sorry it came across that way.

 

I don't view that formatting glitch as a big deal, but I'm not highly skilled in the nuances of formatting.

How do you prevent it?

 

Fair enough regarding the QBO/solar....I did state that it offered a formidable voice of dissent....but the solar flux is moderate this year, as opposed to high last season.

Now, if the SAI fails again, I'm all ears regarding the QBO.....but the preponderance of empirical data combined with the slightly weaker sun changed my mind, as I had originally boarded the +AO/NAO "persistence" express last autumn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

hard to disconnect snow and temperature.   

 

there is liq eq calculated passe at most climo sites, but trying to predict snow totals ... commendably brave but also 'should' be hugely guided by temperature trends.  i wasn't able to read much deeper than the first couple of clicks on that but will later; if that's been covered, cool - 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hard to disconnect snow and temperature.   

 

there is liq eq calculated passe at most climo sites, but trying to predict snow totals ... commendably brave but also 'should' be hugely guided by temperature trends.  i wasn't able to read much deeper than the first couple of clicks on that but will later; if that's been covered, cool - 

Mainly further south....once you get below I 84.

North of there, our snowfall is actually more closely correlated with precip.

It is better to be cold, though....obviously, but het the precip. first of all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No fair.

He copied my outlook :lol:

JK, of course.....but very, very similar.

 

Not that I disagree with the outlook any, but I will say that write up suggests that Nino 1+2 isn't strong, thus making this El Nino a "weaker, central" one. 1+2 is still stronger than all but '82-'83 and '97-'98 in the last 30+ years.

 

Not that I expect WeatherBell to stray from cold and snowy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I disagree with the outlook any, but I will say that write up suggests that Nino 1+2 isn't strong, thus making this El Nino a "weaker, central" one. 1+2 is still stronger than all but '82-'83 and '97-'98 in the last 30+ years.

 

Not that I expect WeatherBell to stray from cold and snowy.

I don't think he stressed it because it isn't that important, TBH.

The greatest anomalies and forcing...go west, young man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its also ironic that you are critical of that outlook for misrepresenting facts, when in fact it is you that mischaracterized that outlook as "cold and snow" here because it is neither.

It is normal in the aggregate throughout NE, and if anything, a touch warm.

 

I have noticed folks referring to forecasts that are not the incarnation of 1998, as cold and snowy....not sure why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you are the first one to question someone who jumps down your throat for protesting your "warm" thoughts on a pattern....when in fact you are just not hung-ho on cold and snowy.

LOL, I gotcha with that comment.

I've already stated my stance. I think it's a reasonable guess. I'm not on the polar express, nor the torch train.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its also ironic that you are critical of that outlook for misrepresenting facts, when in fact it is you that mischaracterized that outlook as "cold and snow" here because it is neither.

It is normal in the aggregate throughout NE, and if anything, a touch warm.

 

I have noticed folks referring to forecasts that are not the incarnation of 1998, as cold and snowy....not sure why.

 

I'm not sure why people get so uptight over this winter forecast stuff, but when you place New England on the edge of positive precip and negative temp anomalies and chuck the last two winters (plus '02-'03) as analogs, it's definitely tipping the scales towards cold and snow.

 

All I was saying is that I think calling 1+2 as something other than a strong anomaly is mis-characterizing it. I don't think it submarines our winter in and of itself, but it felt like the WeatherBell outlook tossed it just a little too carelessly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...