Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,508
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

Winter 2016/2017 because its never too early

Ginx snewx

By Ginx snewx,
in New England

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
SnowGoose69

SnowGoose69

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, JBinStoughton said:

I know. It seems like the orientation of the split is to send it south west, while heights are still high near the SE coast. 

With the ridiculous warm water in the WATL I think its safe to say some sort of SE ridging could be an issue, especially through early January...if the NAO goes negative though that will be negated somewhat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ORH_wxman

ORH_wxman

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, CoastalWx said:

10mb really has no direct correlation to where the surface cold goes. I wouldn't sweat it one bit. 

Yeah you can have below average 10mb heights over you with a huge ridge at 500mb. The important part is that if the strat vortex splits then it will be much easier to sustain blocking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cleetussnow

cleetussnow

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yea, I think that there will be se ridge presence this season, but not because of that particular chart.

I think it could actually benefit much of the area, too.....its not going to overly anomalous, I don't think...

I think the interior might benefit

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tamarack

tamarack

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, J Paul Gordon said:

Anyone predicting a BN (mid-late) November and December vs "colder than last year"? It isn't difficult to be colder than last year. Five degrees (F) colder would still make it a dam warm December.

Understatement, for sure.  "Colder December than last year" is the lowest of low bars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
40/70 Benchmark

40/70 Benchmark

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, rimetree said:

Interesting connection...

http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/684/ArtMID/1768/ArticleID/11936/QA-Is-Arctic-warming-fueling-severe-winter-weather-in-the-mid-latitudes.aspx

I have been somewhat of a proponent of this theory, but Will isn't crazy about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ORH_wxman

ORH_wxman

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, CoastalWx said:

There is some conflicting research out there. Also, you could argue 13-14 and 14-15 were more Pacific influenced as well as the NAO was positive and the overall AO was not hugely negative. 

 

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/JFM_season_ao_index.shtml

Yeah they blame it on the Arctic warming which would force a -AO. But if you say that then you cannot say 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 were due to that because those winters had a positive AO. There was a mega block in the gulf of Alaska but that is not what their theory explicitly predicts. 

 

To me, it kind of wreaks of the NAO stuff a few years ago. They were saying that the NAO was being forced negative by low sea ice. You don't hear that talk so much anymore now that we've had like 3 positive NAO winters in a row despite sea ice remaining low. It has shifted to "extreme winter weather". 

There is almost certainly some material effect from the Arctic warming on the pattern but I don't know if we actually know what it is yet. I'm always skeptical of these hasty attribution claims. We know it causes higher heights over the Arctic but that is not necessarily congruent with blocking. You can have higher heights because it's warmer and have no backed flow...so that wouldn't qualify as blocking. It could be a zonal flow that's warmer. That is what the Barnes et al paper a few years ago was criticizing referencing other papers that basically said "higher heights=blocking". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoastalWx

CoastalWx

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah they blame it on the Arctic warming which would force a -AO. But if you say that then you cannot say 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 were due to that because those winters had a positive AO. There was a mega block in the gulf of Alaska but that is not what their theory explicitly predicts. 

 

To me, it kind of wreaks of the NAO stuff a few years ago. They were saying that the NAO was being forced negative by low sea ice. You don't hear that talk so much anymore now that we've had like 3 positive NAO winters in a row despite sea ice remaining low. It has shifted to "extreme winter weather". 

There is almost certainly some material effect from the Arctic warming on the pattern but I don't know if we actually know what it is yet. I'm always skeptical of these hasty attribution claims. We know it causes higher heights over the Arctic but that is not necessarily congruent with blocking. You can have higher heights because it's warmer and have no backed flow...so that wouldn't qualify as blocking. It could be a zonal flow that's warmer. That is what the Barnes et al paper a few years ago was criticizing referencing other papers that basically said "higher heights=blocking". 

Completely agree. Sure you can have higher overall average heights, but a complete reversal of winds because avg temps are a few C warmer or whatever? Eh, I would need more convincing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
40/70 Benchmark

40/70 Benchmark

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, CoastalWx said:

There is some conflicting research out there. Also, you could argue 13-14 and 14-15 were more Pacific influenced as well as the NAO was positive and the overall AO was not hugely negative. 

 

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/JFM_season_ao_index.shtml

EPO was the main driver in our 30 day march to history and is partially derived from the polar domain..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
40/70 Benchmark

40/70 Benchmark

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah they blame it on the Arctic warming which would force a -AO. But if you say that then you cannot say 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 were due to that because those winters had a positive AO. There was a mega block in the gulf of Alaska but that is not what their theory explicitly predicts. 

 

To me, it kind of wreaks of the NAO stuff a few years ago. They were saying that the NAO was being forced negative by low sea ice. You don't hear that talk so much anymore now that we've had like 3 positive NAO winters in a row despite sea ice remaining low. It has shifted to "extreme winter weather". 

There is almost certainly some material effect from the Arctic warming on the pattern but I don't know if we actually know what it is yet. I'm always skeptical of these hasty attribution claims. We know it causes higher heights over the Arctic but that is not necessarily congruent with blocking. You can have higher heights because it's warmer and have no backed flow...so that wouldn't qualify as blocking. It could be a zonal flow that's warmer. That is what the Barnes et al paper a few years ago was criticizing referencing other papers that basically said "higher heights=blocking". 

Great post.  Very fair and accurate assessment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoastalWx

CoastalWx

Posted
Posted

I think it's completely fair for the weather community to investigate possible outcomes from a warming arctic, but as a community we also seem to be too quick at saying it must be reason X or reason Y.  We tend to be too quick in thinking we have the smoking gun for meteorological problems.  We don't. But, I'm all for good research that can benefit the science. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is keeping the science "clean" and away from agendas and lobbyists playing pocket pool with the research. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
40/70 Benchmark

40/70 Benchmark

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, CoastalWx said:

I think it's completely fair for the weather community to investigate possible outcomes from a warming arctic, but as a community we also seem to be too quick at saying it must be reason X or reason Y.  We tend to be too quick in thinking we have the smoking gun for meteorological problems.  We don't. But, I'm all for good research that can benefit the science. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is keeping the science "clean" and away from agendas and lobbyists playing pocket pool with the research. 

Commonality there with the clinical community being too quick on the diagnosis trigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JC-CT

JC-CT

Posted
Posted
I think it's completely fair for the weather community to investigate possible outcomes from a warming arctic, but as a community we also seem to be too quick at saying it must be reason X or reason Y.  We tend to be too quick in thinking we have the smoking gun for meteorological problems.  We don't. But, I'm all for good research that can benefit the science. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is keeping the science "clean" and away from agendas and lobbyists playing pocket pool with the research. 


You'll be able to avoid agendas and lobbyists when people stop caring about things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jebman

Jebman

Posted
Posted

ATTN: Weathafella, Ginx Snewx and others in the SNE and in the NE:

We will have a pattern this winter that will give you 400 to 600 percent of normal snowfall. You will break records. Weenies will be flying all over the place. This winter you will have so damned much snow that you will think the last winter when you had 100+ inches of it, to be a warm spring day. BOSTON WILL BE SHUT DOWN FOR A WEEK, MAYBE TWO WEEKS. All of your snowblowers will blow millions of gaskets. Hell, you'll effin RUN OUT OF GASKETS. You will have the military come down to Dale City to force me via a fresh executive order, to come up there and dig you all out - Because I am the only man who CAN.

The Winter of 2016-2017 will blow your mind. You will stay up for a week at a time following the models. You will be doing this well into June! The pattern is setting up and it shall obtain all winter long.

Just remember - THE JEBMAN WARNED YOU FIRST.

 

 

 

 

 

- I am The Jebman, and I approve this message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...