January 2016 Pattern Disco

[OSUmetstud]

Most unremarkable minus 6 ao ever.

[JC-CT]

just get us the cold I will worry about precip later

 

I tend to agree, a pattern supporting cold will support precipitation when the cold comes in and when it lifts, or it will be like last February and just be massive troughing in the east that supports cold and a favorable storm track.

 

A pattern featuring ridging in the east is going to be dry and warm.

 

A pattern with marginal temps is probably going to end up, on average, marginal on snowfall. I think that's what we are in right now.

[Ginx snewx]

I tend to agree, a pattern supporting cold will support precipitation when the cold comes in and when it lifts, or it will be like last February and just be massive troughing in the east that supports cold and a favorable storm track.

 

A pattern featuring ridging in the east is going to be dry and warm.

 

A pattern with marginal temps is probably going to end up, on average, marginal on snowfall. I think that's what we are in right now.

we like the cold

[Ginx snewx]

Most unremarkable minus 6 ao ever.

Experience says the biggest storms occur as the -AO breaks down no?

[ORH_wxman]

just get us the cold I will worry about precip later

 

 

I'll do the opposite.

[Ginx snewx]

I'll do the opposite.

in Natick?

[ORH_wxman]

in Natick?

 

Yes.

[Ginx snewx]

Yes.

I could see if you were at 1k but 100 ft?

[forkyfork]

this looks worse than ok

[ORH_wxman]

I could see if you were at 1k but 100 ft?

 

That's why we have data....to remove the anecdotes. The above numbers hold for interior E MA as well. It's different further south and southeast.

[OSUmetstud]

Experience says the biggest storms occur as the -AO breaks down no?

On the whole it seems pretty bootleg. No big cold with that which would be climo favored. Fighting nino.

[40/70 Benchmark]

I will absolutely take precip first and temperatures 2nd.

 

Just as a quick exercise for interior SNE...ORH in the past 25 years (since 1990) has had the following breakdown of snowfall:

 

Above average: 12

Average: 4

Below Average: 9

 

The 9 below average are 1990-1991, 1991-1992, 1994-1995, 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2001-2002, 2006-2007, and 2011-2012. There was 1 of those 9 winters that had above average precip and that was 1997-1998...and out of the 9 winters below average, 1997-1998 had the most snowfall at 54.7". 1998-1999 was near average precip and the rest was solidly below average.

 

In contrast, the following years with above average temps either had average or above average snowfall: 1996-1997, 2005-2006, 2007-2008, 2012-2013. All of them except 2005-2006 had above average precip...and 2005-2006 was the low year in the group at 66.2"...the other 3 were above average snowfall.

 

Temperatures still matter...there's no claim that they do not. But precip matters more. One thing to take into consideration is that many of our warm/mild patters are also dry...so the two come in tandem. There's some covariance there. However, if we enter a pattern that is not particularly cold, but offers a lot of storm chances, then you should probably take that over a pattern that is very cold, but doesn't look too active. At least if you are in interior SNE...it gets more dicey further south along the south coast or SE areas. In those regions, you do not require a train of storms to stay above average for snowfall...just a couple good sized events will usually keep things in the black. The rest of our region needs consistent storm chances.

Thank you.

[Ginx snewx]

On the whole it seems pretty bootleg. No big cold with that which would be climo favored. Fighting nino.

Where would you expect big cold?

[Ginx snewx]

Thank you.

that works out well Sat for you. Wills numbers are way to generalized to be meaningful. A two week period of cold could produce snowfall followed by a torch, so that months says AN snow AN temps. Way too generalized for my liking. Break that down into individual weeks

[40/70 Benchmark]

that works out well Sat for you

The cold worked out great before then.

[dendrite]

that works out well Sat for you

How did Jan 04 work out?

[40/70 Benchmark]

Steve, I don't know what you are arguing....the data was presented before you.

This is why people bust your chops.

 

The debate was over before it started.

[OSUmetstud]

Where would you expect big cold?

I wasnt but almost every ao of this intensity had it in the past. I think this ends up in the top 5.

[40/70 Benchmark]

How did Jan 04 work out?

According to Steve, it should never rain in January in the mid latitudes.

[JC-CT]

that works out well Sat for you

 

Yeah, my problem with the analysis is that the covariance is presented as a reasonable possibility, then the statement is made that we should take a pattern that is marginal with temps but offers a lot of storm chances over a pattern that is cold but relatively dry, but data isn't presented to support that specific conclusion. I don't know if it's true or not, I just don't think that's a conclusion that can be definitively reached with what was presented. For instance, I don't recall 2012-13 being a particularly active season.

[Ginx snewx]

I wasnt but almost every ao of this intensity had it in the past. I think this ends up in the top 5.

i see some -45 anomalies in the Midwest this week, is that a result?

[CoastalWx]

Yeah, my problem with the analysis is that the covariance is presented as a reasonable possibility, then the statement is made that we should take a pattern that is marginal with temps but offers a lot of storm chances over a pattern that is cold but relatively dry, but data isn't presented to support that specific conclusion. I don't know if it's true or not, I just don't think that's a conclusion that can be definitively reached with what was presented. For instance, I don't recall 2012-13 being a particularly active season.

 

Juicy back half of winter in the east. Pretty active inland.

 

December 2015 was wet and record toasty, Jan 2016warm and so far near normal precip.  Wait until March is done before you evaluate.

 

Right now at this point, it should be viewed in relative terms. At least lets get some coastal going. Regardless of temps, you need that. Worry about QPF first. IMHO I don't expect a big winter, so look at it in terms of just getting some moisture in here. Get the sample size going...get more storms and the better the chance of a few producing snow.

[OSUmetstud]

i see some -45 anomalies in the Midwest this week, is that a result?

Minus 45?

Ahh yeah see that in nd. Makes sense. Id imagine it has something to do with it. Usually theyd encompass much of the Us though lol

[WinterWolf]

Well isn't Nino supposed to be Juicy?   It should get rolling quite soon with the Juice, with a Nino of this magnitude.  Or is this going to be different?

[ORH_wxman]

Yeah, my problem with the analysis is that the covariance is presented as a reasonable possibility, then the statement is made that we should take a pattern that is marginal with temps but offers a lot of storm chances over a pattern that is cold but relatively dry, but data isn't presented to support that specific conclusion. I don't know if it's true or not, I just don't think that's a conclusion that can be definitively reached with what was presented. For instance, I don't recall 2012-13 being a particularly active season.

I showed every winter since 1990. Exactly 0 out of 12 above average winters had below average precip.

OTOH only 1 out of 9 below average winters had above average precip. Yet, 3 of the 12 good years had above average temps. This shows that precip is more important than temps. It is NOT claiming that temps aren't important. They are. But for my area, precip is more important. Down your way, that is probably not true as years like 2007-2008 and 1996-1997 were probably below average there and I'm guessing you did a lot better in 2003-2004 relative to average than we did.

[JC-CT]

I showed every winter since 1990. Exactly 0 out of 12 above average winters had below average precip.

OTOH only 1 out of 9 below average winters had above average precip. Yet, 3 of the 12 good years had above average temps. This shows that precip is more important than temps. It is NOT claiming that temps aren't important. They are. But for my area, precip is more important. Down your way, that is probably not true as years like 2007-2008 and 1996-1997 were probably below average there and I'm guessing you did a lot better in 2003-2004 relative to average than we did.

 

You are showing that precipitation is more important that temperatures on a seasonal average basis. That doesn't definitively conclude that marginal temp-high precipitation patterns are better than cold temp-marginal precipitation patters intra-seasonally. It could mean that seasons with overall higher temp patterns that produce short bouts of extreme cold could have explosive gradients and larger individual snowfall events, right?

[ORH_wxman]

You are showing that precipitation is more important that temperatures on a seasonal average basis. That doesn't definitively conclude that marginal temp-high precipitation patterns are better than cold temp-marginal precipitation patters intra-seasonally. It could mean that seasons with overall higher temp patterns that produce short bouts of extreme cold could have explosive gradients and larger individual snowfall events, right?

Yes you are correct that theoretically could be the case. However, in order for it to work then we'd have to get almost all of our snow events timed perfectly with a cold pattern. Unlikely in an above average snowfall winter that was also warm. Examples would be early December 1996, late December 2012, 2nd half of February 2013, February 2008, February 2005. All were mild patterns but gave above average snowfall to interior MA.

Seasonal descriptions work well because it takes a decent number of events to get average snowfall in interior MA. What I had yet to see amidst this objection of "precip matters more than temps in interior MA" is evidence that temperature matter more. I.E. show me a bunch of cold patterns with below average precip that still gave above average snows to interior MA. You won't find more of those than warm/wet patterns that gave above average snow.

[Ginx snewx]

Steve, I don't know what you are arguing....the data was presented before you.

This is why people bust your chops.

The debate was over before it started.

lol ok,JC just posted more, go bust his chops.

[JC-CT]

Yes you are correct that theoretically could be the case. However, in order for it to work then we'd have to get almost all of our snow events timed perfectly with a cold pattern. Unlikely in an above average snowfall winter that was also warm. Examples would be early December 1996, late December 2012, 2nd half of February 2013, February 2008, February 2005. All were mild patterns but gave above average snowfall to interior MA.

Seasonal descriptions work well because it takes a decent number of events to get average snowfall in interior MA. What I had yet to see amidst this objection of "precip matters more than temps in interior MA" is evidence that temperature matter more. I.E. show me a bunch of cold patterns with below average precip that still gave above average snows to interior MA. You won't find more of those than warm/wet patterns that gave above average snow.

 

I have a short memory and completely trust your knowledge of specific winters over mine. But the one I can recall, 2012-13, I thought wasn't really a warm pattern for February and March when most of the snowfall occurred, and most of the warmth was from large anomalies in Dec-Jan.

[CoastalWx]

JC, you can simply look at temps for ORH in winter (avg temps meaning the mean). Look at +2-3 and see how cold that still is.