Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    15,515
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    chrislittlenews
    Newest Member
    chrislittlenews
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
WinterWxLuvr

January Medium/Long Range Discussion Part 2

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, BristowWx said:

Running the 6z GEFS 2m temp loop through 384 shows nothing promising right to 31 Jan.  Even Western Canada looks fairly warm.  And our region is mostly mild.  But then I read LC from last night and it was encouraging.  

The 6Z GFS is encouraging on multiple fronts. Most notably: positive height anomalies over the pole...ridging extending up from the Caspian to the pole...positive anomaly over Greenland...the beginnings of what looks like it might become a very impressive ridge up through the GOA, and then eventual connection to the Caspian ridge for cross-polar flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, C.A.P.E. said:

The last few runs of the GEFS have shifted in that direction. Not so on the EPS or the GEPS. Will have to watch it, but for now we still seem to be on track for a more favorable east coast pattern by early Feb.

I'm curious to see what Jan 27th - 30th yeilds, but I suspect you're right; we have to wait until February. It's better than waiting until December, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ender said:

The 6Z GFS is encouraging on multiple fronts. Most notably: positive height anomalies over the pole...ridging extending up from the Caspian to the pole...positive anomaly over Greenland...the beginnings of what looks like it might become a very impressive ridge up through the GOA, and then eventual connection to the Caspian ridge for cross-polar flow.

Didn't like the GEFS but yeah the Op opened my eyes. Looked like a nice -AO and was that the PV diving down towards the lakes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ender said:

The 6Z GFS is encouraging on multiple fronts. Most notably: positive height anomalies over the pole...ridging extending up from the Caspian to the pole...positive anomaly over Greenland...the beginnings of what looks like it might become a very impressive ridge up through the GOA, and then eventual connection to the Caspian ridge for cross-polar flow.

Excellent.  I looked at it again. It was early this morning.  Something will pop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, mdsnowlover said:

he's basing that statement  on their forecast which the euro weeklies support. I only follow him occassionally now. 

Which forecast?  The one for a front loaded winter fading after dec?  Oh wait the one they edited to cold and snow coming in January. Oh wait or the one saying Jan 20. Now it's feb. I guess if you just keep saying it's coming you will be right eventually. I happen to agree with him this time but him saying that doesn't add any confidence to my expectations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Which forecast?  The one for a front loaded winter fading after dec?  Oh wait the one they edited to cold and snow coming in January. Oh wait or the one saying Jan 20. Now it's feb. I guess if you just keep saying it's coming you will be right eventually. I happen to agree with him this time but him saying that doesn't add any confidence to my expectations. 

i really dont care which one, I just repeated what he said. I dont rip people here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mdsnowlover said:

i really dont care which one, I just repeated what he said. I dont rip people here. 

No you just complain constantly about every pattern discussion unless you have snow on the ground. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

No you just complain constantly about every pattern discussion unless you have snow on the ground. 

show me where i have complained about a patterm, !!! I believe I have posted, maybe 3 times this past week about the past snow event. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ender said:

The 6Z GFS is encouraging on multiple fronts. Most notably: positive height anomalies over the pole...ridging extending up from the Caspian to the pole...positive anomaly over Greenland...the beginnings of what looks like it might become a very impressive ridge up through the GOA, and then eventual connection to the Caspian ridge for cross-polar flow.

Though it's a deterministic GFS run out there in time, that is a very nice look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

january looks to be done - february pattern might be good but we will have to wait another 10 days or so to see if that has any legs. Best to just enjoy the next two weeks of spring and check back toward the end of the month


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we have a pretty good model war for day 10-15. The EPS if anything doubled down on a healthy pna ridge and eastern trough. Geps supports it. Gefs otoh is getting the trough stuck in the inter mountain west and just leaving it there. That seems suspect to me.  I'm not sure gefs is all that bad as it could still evolve to a decent look after. 

More troubling is the dry look to the long range. Very little snow signal showing up anywhere. Even to our north. Storms aren't missing us on the EPS after day 10 as much as there just aren't any.  Op gfs looked promising day 10 though. I think we need to get that look going into feb then hope the AO/nao come around in response to the swe for at least some period. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Well we have a pretty good model war for day 10-15. The EPS if anything doubled down on a healthy pna ridge and eastern trough. Geps supports it. Gefs otoh is getting the trough stuck in the inter mountain west and just leaving it there. That seems suspect to me.  I'm not sure gefs is all that bad as it could still evolve to a decent look after. 

More troubling is the dry look to the long range. Very little snow signal showing up anywhere. Even to our north. Storms aren't missing us on the EPS after day 10 as much as there just aren't any.  Op gfs looked promising day 10 though. I think we need to get that look going into feb then hope the AO/nao come around in response to the swe for at least some period. 

Was literally just going to post about this. You beat me to it. Not sure whats going on with the GEFS. Recent op runs have looked decent day 10+.

I am not too worried about the dry look at this point. It may be that initially our chances will have to come from ns impulses, and if thats the case there probably wouldn't be a signal until closer in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, C.A.P.E. said:

Was literally just going to post about this. You beat me to it. Not sure whats going on with the GEFS. Recent op runs have looked decent day 10+.

I am not too worried about the dry look at this point. It may be that initially our chances will have to come from ns impulses, and if thats the case there probably wouldn't be a signal until closer in.

Not worried it's just the one negative. But I'm pleased the pattern looks fairly stable and not about to quickly flip back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, C.A.P.E. said:

Was literally just going to post about this. You beat me to it. Not sure whats going on with the GEFS. Recent op runs have looked decent day 10+.

I am not too worried about the dry look at this point. It may be that initially our chances will have to come from ns impulses, and if thats the case there probably wouldn't be a signal until closer in.

Some cold air and a few clippers through the middle of Feb would lift spirits while we wait for a southern jet storm in late February. It would fit our pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing the difference between the EPS and gefs right now and it starts pretty early. They diverge around day 8. Gefs is rebooting the December pattern. 18z even more adamant. One of them is going to take a bad defeat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

It's amazing the difference between the EPS and gefs right now and it starts pretty early. They diverge around day 8. Gefs is rebooting the December pattern. 18z even more adamant. One of them is going to take a bad defeat. 

I thought today the OP Euro and EPS too a slight step towards the GFS in the day 10-12 range at least.  Meanwhile I thought  the GFS/GEFS took a step towards the Euro at 18Z in the Day 13-16 period.  The GFS was the first to catch onto the rebooted southeast ridge briefly behind the day 9-10 bowling ball and it seemed the euro moved that way today.  It may just end up being delayed by 3-5 days.  Whether or not we can give the GFS credit for seeing that delay of just sucking and backing it's way into a correct forecast is always a question 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's amazing the difference between the EPS and gefs right now and it starts pretty early. They diverge around day 8. Gefs is rebooting the December pattern. 18z even more adamant. One of them is going to take a bad defeat. 


I'll take the gfs to easily beat the euro. In this winter...take the worst outcome

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SnowGoose69 said:

I thought today the OP Euro and EPS too a slight step towards the GFS in the day 10-12 range at least.  Meanwhile I thought  the GFS/GEFS took a step towards the Euro at 18Z in the Day 13-16 period.  The GFS was the first to catch onto the rebooted southeast ridge briefly behind the day 9-10 bowling ball and it seemed the euro moved that way today.  It may just end up being delayed by 3-5 days.  Whether or not we can give the GFS credit for seeing that delay of just sucking and backing it's way into a correct forecast is always a question 

I don't know looking at the 18z gefs it seemed to go even harder towards the western trough idea. I'm using the geps frame that most closely matches the EPS day 15 since I can't post it even though the times don't match. These looks can't be more night and day to me. 

IMG_0239.PNG

IMG_0240.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

It's amazing the difference between the EPS and gefs right now and it starts pretty early. They diverge around day 8. Gefs is rebooting the December pattern. 18z even more adamant. One of them is going to take a bad defeat. 

I think if we move toward a December like pattern in Feb I will need therapy.  I mean real therapy...couch and guy with a clip board. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BristowWx said:

I think if we move toward a December like pattern in Feb I will need therapy.  I mean real therapy...couch and guy with a clip board. 

Even with my pessimism I'm leaning towards the geps EPS solution. Gefs evolution seems out of touch with the soi mjo and seasonal progression. It's developing the same pattern but with opposite forcing from earlier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I don't know looking at the 18z gefs it seemed to go even harder towards the western trough idea. I'm using the geps frame that most closely matches the EPS day 15 since I can't post it even though the times don't match. These looks can't be more night and day to me. 

IMG_0239.PNG

IMG_0240.PNG

Not so sure we couldn't get a better snow out of the gfs look than the eps look though.

Thats not really much of a ridge in the east.  Those heights could support snow and we'd be more likely to get a wet system .  That eps pattern screams cold , dry, suppressed IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

very possible both models are wrong and we end up with a pattern somewhere in between with no consensus at this point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, of 20 winters in which the QBO is positive in November and stays positive into February:

  • Six had a January that was at least 1.5F above normal.
    • All six were followed by a February that was at or below normal: two were between -.1F and -1.3F of normal and the other four averaged 5.8F below normal. 
    • All six had Feb snowfall of at least 8.8", the average was 15.2". 
  • Only four had a December and a January that were at least 1.5F above normal:
    • The subsequent February averaged 3.1F below and March 2.3F below normal. 
    • February in those four years averaged 16.2" of snow (9.8", 10.7", 27.2" and 16.9") 
  • Removing some of the constraints and looking at the full set of 20 winters and comparing them to the 48 non "QBO stays positive Nov - Feb" winters 
    • December showed a normal distribution of snowless, versus <2" or >6" snow totals. 
    • January deviated from the non +QBO Winter distribution. 
      • 20% of the non +QBO winters had 2" or less while 50% of the 20 +QBO winters did. 
      • 35% of the non +QBO winters less than 4", but 60% of the +QBO winders did. 
    • For the month of February: 
      • 44% of non +QBO winters had less than 2" of snow and 35% of the 20 +QBO winters did. 
      • 60% of non +QBO winters had less than 4" of snow, but only 35% of the +QBO Winters did.
      • 60% of the +QBO Winter's Februaries had 8.8" or more, 50% had more than ~10" and 40% had more than about 15". That compares to only seven of 48, or 15% of the non +QBO Winter's Feb's getting more than 8.8" and five winters, 10%, with more than 12".
      • While Dulles' average February snowfall is 7", the non +QBO winters only had a 31% chance of getting at least 7" in the month (as opposed to 60% for +QBO Winters) and they had a 63% chance of recording less than 5" in the month. Thus in a winter that has not had a +QBO from November into February there's a better chance that we'll see less than 5" than there is a chance of more than ~9" in a +QBO winter February.
    • March: 
      • 67% of non +QBO winters will have less than 2" in March and 50% will in the +QBO winters
      • 27% chance of more than 6" in a non +QBO winter as opposed to a 40% chance in the +QBO set. 
      • 10% of non +QBO winters get more than 10" of snow in March and only one of 48 such winters saw more than 11", while 25% of the +QBO set had more than 13". 

NOTE: it was necessary to use Baltimore's observations as a supplement to the IAD records for 1948 - 1962 in order to get a history that covered the whole QBO reanalysis period that begins in 1948.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

Not so sure we couldn't get a better snow out of the gfs look than the eps look though.

Thats not really much of a ridge in the east.  Those heights could support snow and we'd be more likely to get a wet system .  That eps pattern screams cold , dry, suppressed IMO.

Oh I'm not arguing the gefs is a disaster for our snow chances just pointing out the stark differences right now. A compromise between the two could work well for us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ender said:

So, of 20 winters in which the QBO is positive in November and stays positive into February:

  • Six had a January that was at least 1.5F above normal.
    • All six were followed by a February that was at or below normal: two were between -.1F and -1.3F of normal and the other four averaged 5.8F below normal. 
    • All six had Feb snowfall of at least 8.8", the average was 15.2". 
  • Only four had a December and a January that were at least 1.5F above normal:
    • The subsequent February averaged 3.1F below and March 2.3F below normal. 
    • February in those four years averaged 16.2" of snow (9.8", 10.7", 27.2" and 16.9") 
  • Removing some of the constraints and looking at the full set of 20 winters and comparing them to the 48 non "QBO stays positive Nov - Feb" winters 
    • December showed a normal distribution of snowless, versus <2" or >6" snow totals. 
    • January deviated from the non +QBO Winter distribution. 
      • 20% of the non +QBO winters had 2" or less while 50% of the 20 +QBO winters did. 
      • 35% of the non +QBO winters less than 4", but 60% of the +QBO winders did. 
    • For the month of February: 
      • 44% of non +QBO winters had less than 2" of snow and 35% of the 20 +QBO winters did. 
      • 60% of non +QBO winters had less than 4" of snow, but only 35% of the +QBO Winters did.
      • 60% of the +QBO Winter's Februaries had 8.8" or more, 50% had more than ~10" and 40% had more than about 15". That compares to only seven of 48, or 15% of the non +QBO Winter's Feb's getting more than 8.8" and five winters, 10%, with more than 12".
      • While Dulles' average February snowfall is 7", the non +QBO winters only had a 31% chance of getting at least 7" in the month (as opposed to 60% for +QBO Winters) and they had a 63% chance of recording less than 5" in the month. Thus in a winter that has not had a +QBO from November into February there's a better chance that we'll see less than 5" than there is a chance of more than ~9" in a +QBO winter February.
    • March: 
      • 67% of non +QBO winters will have less than 2" in March and 50% will in the +QBO winters
      • 27% chance of more than 6" in a non +QBO winter as opposed to a 40% chance in the +QBO set. 
      • 10% of non +QBO winters get more than 10" of snow in March and only one of 48 such winters saw more than 11", while 25% of the +QBO set had more than 13". 

NOTE: it was necessary to use Baltimore's observations as a supplement to the IAD records for 1948 - 1962 in order to get a history that covered the whole QBO reanalysis period that begins in 1948.

 

Seems to be good news in the data there. And thank you. As someone who likes to play with data myself I know how time consuming it can be. That's awesome you put that together.  Much appreciated!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Seems to be good news in the data there. And thank you. As someone who likes to play with data myself I know how time consuming it can be. That's awesome you put that together.  Much appreciated!!!!

Thank you, and you're right. It's tedious as hell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ender said:

So, of 20 winters in which the QBO is positive in November and stays positive into February:

  • Six had a January that was at least 1.5F above normal.
    • All six were followed by a February that was at or below normal: two were between -.1F and -1.3F of normal and the other four averaged 5.8F below normal. 
    • All six had Feb snowfall of at least 8.8", the average was 15.2". 
  • Only four had a December and a January that were at least 1.5F above normal:
    • The subsequent February averaged 3.1F below and March 2.3F below normal. 
    • February in those four years averaged 16.2" of snow (9.8", 10.7", 27.2" and 16.9") 
  • Removing some of the constraints and looking at the full set of 20 winters and comparing them to the 48 non "QBO stays positive Nov - Feb" winters 
    • December showed a normal distribution of snowless, versus <2" or >6" snow totals. 
    • January deviated from the non +QBO Winter distribution. 
      • 20% of the non +QBO winters had 2" or less while 50% of the 20 +QBO winters did. 
      • 35% of the non +QBO winters less than 4", but 60% of the +QBO winders did. 
    • For the month of February: 
      • 44% of non +QBO winters had less than 2" of snow and 35% of the 20 +QBO winters did. 
      • 60% of non +QBO winters had less than 4" of snow, but only 35% of the +QBO Winters did.
      • 60% of the +QBO Winter's Februaries had 8.8" or more, 50% had more than ~10" and 40% had more than about 15". That compares to only seven of 48, or 15% of the non +QBO Winter's Feb's getting more than 8.8" and five winters, 10%, with more than 12".
      • While Dulles' average February snowfall is 7", the non +QBO winters only had a 31% chance of getting at least 7" in the month (as opposed to 60% for +QBO Winters) and they had a 63% chance of recording less than 5" in the month. Thus in a winter that has not had a +QBO from November into February there's a better chance that we'll see less than 5" than there is a chance of more than ~9" in a +QBO winter February.
    • March: 
      • 67% of non +QBO winters will have less than 2" in March and 50% will in the +QBO winters
      • 27% chance of more than 6" in a non +QBO winter as opposed to a 40% chance in the +QBO set. 
      • 10% of non +QBO winters get more than 10" of snow in March and only one of 48 such winters saw more than 11", while 25% of the +QBO set had more than 13". 

NOTE: it was necessary to use Baltimore's observations as a supplement to the IAD records for 1948 - 1962 in order to get a history that covered the whole QBO reanalysis period that begins in 1948.

 

Amazing work. Thanks for putting that   

 together.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×