Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    15,514
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Raifu
    Newest Member
    Raifu
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
WinterWxLuvr

January Medium/Long Range Discussion Part 2

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Yeoman said:

Well at least we can take solace in it being a day 10-15 solution, which means it's just as likely to be totally opposite solution come reality.

I wouldn't have even mentioned it if the Euro ensembles weren't so similar. Hopefully,  the rubber band snaps by the time February rolls around ala Ender's or some/any other method. 

Share this post


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

I wouldn't have even mentioned it if the Euro ensembles weren't so similar. Hopefully,  the rubber band snaps by the time February rolls around ala Ender's or some/any other method. 

I prefer the bathtub slosh (copyright Joseph Bastardi) way.   :P

 

MDstorm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, MDstorm said:

I prefer the bathtub slosh (copyright Joseph Bastardi) way.   :P

 

MDstorm

Or that the toaster falls into the bathtub, if the band doesn't snap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course,  not that I'm predicting Feb is a fail too overall, but we'd be silly not to consider the Cansips since they/it has done well so far. Here's its forecast for Feb, which sadly looks a whole lot like its Jan forecast "in our area" below it.

http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=cansips&region=nhem&pkg=z500a&runtime=2017010100&fh=1

http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=cansips&region=nhem&pkg=z500a&runtime=2017010100&fh=0&xpos=0&ypos=198

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

Of course,  not that I'm predicting Feb is a fail too overall, but we'd be silly not to consider the Cansips since they/it has done well so far. Here's its forecast for Feb, which sadly looks a whole lot like its Jan forecast "in our area" below it.

http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=cansips&region=nhem&pkg=z500a&runtime=2017010100&fh=1

http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=cansips&region=nhem&pkg=z500a&runtime=2017010100&fh=0&xpos=0&ypos=198

 

 

It actually portrays endless warmth  

Eh, I heard the Euro might be going with an EL Nino developing in the summer. 

  

 

 

Share this post


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

 

It actually portrays endless warmth  

Eh, I heard the Euro might be going with an EL Nino developing in the summer. 

  

 

 

actually according to joe de'aleo at weatherbell we're in a La Nada, which is between la nina and el nino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

Of course,  not that I'm predicting Feb is a fail too overall, but we'd be silly not to consider the Cansips since they/it has done well so far. Here's its forecast for Feb, which sadly looks a whole lot like its Jan forecast "in our area" below it.

http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=cansips&region=nhem&pkg=z500a&runtime=2017010100&fh=1

http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=cansips&region=nhem&pkg=z500a&runtime=2017010100&fh=0&xpos=0&ypos=198

 

Be careful, the Weather Police will be on you for posting the CanSIPS. 

That said, its 1 month forecasts have been very good going back to the summer. But it shows warmth so many will dismiss it as a bad model because of that. 

Share this post


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

You highlighted what's definitely the best way out of the mess we're getting into. 

I'm pretty sure that my fantasy is nearly impossible. Probably just as likely as my hope of seeing anything other than below normal heights from the Caspian northward. 

While the European control heads for -3sd NAO and AO towards the end of the period, those are misleading indices. On the one hand the positives over Scandinavia do pop up over the North Atlantic...right over GL and into NE Canada where they meet up with the impressive positive anomaly from Ontario. The result is a 4sd H5 anomaly centered over central Baffin Island and well above normal heights for GL...and modestly above normal heights over Alaska. But things are still progressive. Really progressive as the Pacific jet is screaming along at 200+ knots. Still I'd take that over the ECE mean. At least I think I would. 

The ECEM seems fairly confident of a 2sd H5 anomaly over Labrador along with decent confidence of a deepening Kamchatka trough. That then should lead to an Aleutian/W-AK ridge, which in turn leads to a trough thats too far west to make me happy. In fact I think it'd lead to the GEFS mean shown at day 16; and don't let those modestly below normal H5 heights across the southern tier fool you, there's no cold air on that map. We just need everything to move to the right by about 800 pixels (of if I drag the browser over to the screen on the right it'd only need to be 200 pixels). The 12Z operational GFS would probably be my "preferred" solution, but only because it looks like there's the beginnings of an Aleutian low and a ridge pumping up to its east. 

I suppose a positive way of looking at things is we have an impressive positive high latitude H5 anomaly on our side of the planet, the trough over Alaska doesn't look like it'll become a four to six week fixture on the map, nor does anything else at this point (except the +H5 feature over Baffin/Labrador). This is just going to take a good 15 - 20...or 25 days to sort itself out. 

Share this post


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

Of course,  not that I'm predicting Feb is a fail too overall, but we'd be silly not to consider the Cansips since they/it has done well so far. Here's its forecast for Feb, which sadly looks a whole lot like its Jan forecast "in our area" below it.

http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=cansips&region=nhem&pkg=z500a&runtime=2017010100&fh=1

http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=cansips&region=nhem&pkg=z500a&runtime=2017010100&fh=0&xpos=0&ypos=198

 

That Jan 1, initialized CANSIPS, that's the "old thinking". This is the new economy, I mean new H5 regime, those old rules no longer apply...

The CFS, initialized and run today at 12Z, shows a spectacular February. Just make sure you're looking at today's 12Z, definitely don't look at the prior four runs (or so). 

Share this post


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

That Jan 1, initialized CANSIPS, that's the "old thinking". This is the new economy, I mean new H5 regime, those old rules no longer apply...

The CFS, initialized and run today at 12Z, shows a spectacular February. Just make sure you're looking at today's 12Z, definitely don't look at the prior four runs (or so). 

can you post a link. i have WB but not sure what to choose ty in advance

Share this post


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

I'm pretty sure that my fantasy is nearly impossible. Probably just as likely as my hope of seeing anything other than below normal heights from the Caspian northward. 

While the European control heads for -3sd NAO and AO towards the end of the period, those are misleading indices. On the one hand the positives over Scandinavia do pop up over the North Atlantic...right over GL and into NE Canada where they meet up with the impressive positive anomaly from Ontario. The result is a 4sd H5 anomaly centered over central Baffin Island and well above normal heights for GL...and modestly above normal heights over Alaska. But things are still progressive. Really progressive as the Pacific jet is screaming along at 200+ knots. Still I'd take that over the ECE mean. At least I think I would. 

The ECEM seems fairly confident of a 2sd H5 anomaly over Labrador along with decent confidence of a deepening Kamchatka trough. That then should lead to an Aleutian/W-AK ridge, which in turn leads to a trough thats too far west to make me happy. In fact I think it'd lead to the GEFS mean shown at day 16; and don't let those modestly below normal H5 heights across the southern tier fool you, there's no cold air on that map. We just need everything to move to the right by about 800 pixels (of if I drag the browser over to the screen on the right it'd only need to be 200 pixels). The 12Z operational GFS would probably be my "preferred" solution, but only because it looks like there's the beginnings of an Aleutian low and a ridge pumping up to its east. 

I suppose a positive way of looking at things is we have an impressive positive high latitude H5 anomaly on our side of the planet, the trough over Alaska doesn't look like it'll become a four to six week fixture on the map, nor does anything else at this point (except the +H5 feature over Baffin/Labrador). This is just going to take a good 15 - 20...or 25 days to sort itself out. 

While a progression of the pattern east would be best I'm not sure I see that as likely. At least not forced from the pacific side. Every time the ridge in the North Pacific asserts itself it has been too far west to push the trough into the eastern conus with any regularity or stability.  This is supported by the sst there as well. Some things I just think we're stuck with and will be a factor we have to overcome if we want snow. That's one of them. If I assume that is the status quo when I start brainstorming ways to compensate or overcome that I keep coming back to blocking originating from the east and backing in. From where day 15 leaves us on both gefs and EPS the ridge is centered up over and east of Hudson Bay. Heights are beginning to rise in response near AK and Lower under it but as you point at as yet it does us no good. The ridge is still not far enough northwest and the conus is void any cold air. But from there maybe our best bet is the ridging to continue to lift north and hopefully as heights naturally lower under it retrograde west as well. The AK heights would then rise and eventually I would imagine heights would crash over the conus in response to reach a stable pattern. 

I remember back in December someone showed an analog based prog that showed what similar sst years looked like during periods of + neutral and - nao. The results during anything other then negative were pretty ugly and about what we have seen. Even JB admitted a while back that some of the factors were hostile this year but he was relying on a lot of blocking. We haven't had that and so the results have been what would be expected. Hopefully we can get a period of favorable blocking in February and salvage some of the season. Without it we probably can get another transient shot of cold or two and pray for good luck to score one or two snow events but that's about the best we can hope for imo without more nao help. 

Share this post


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

That Jan 1, initialized CANSIPS, that's the "old thinking". This is the new economy, I mean new H5 regime, those old rules no longer apply...

The CFS, initialized and run today at 12Z, shows a spectacular February. Just make sure you're looking at today's 12Z, definitely don't look at the prior four runs (or so). 

Old??? It's the 1/1/17 run. They only run it once a month,  at least what they release to the non-paying public. Or, maybe you were just being facetious. Anyway, idk why we should believe the 12z run of the CFS when the prior 4 runs showed something contrary.  Or maybe you're being facetious again. 

Share this post


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

Old??? It's the 1/1/17 run. They only run it once a month,  at least what they release to the non-paying public. Or, maybe you were just being facetious. Anyway, idk why we should believe the 12z run of the CFS when the prior 4 runs showed something contrary.  Or maybe you're being facetious again. 

I thought that's how the CFS was used.  Go with the latest run, especially if it shows what you want.

Share this post


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

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/mchen/CFSv2FCST/monthly/

These are run off 6z data.  Not sure where Ender gets his 12z run

tyvm i did a search and found this page. WB has a run labeled 12z, but wasnt sure it was te correct one, the MSLP section was interesting, a couple of coastals.

Share this post


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

tyvm i did a search and found this page. WB has a run labeled 12z, but wasnt sure it was te correct one, the MSLP section was interesting, a couple of coastals.

BN temps too.  Though I'm sure it'll be different the next time it runs. :)

Share this post


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

Old??? It's the 1/1/17 run. They only run it once a month,  at least what they release to the non-paying public. Or, maybe you were just being facetious. Anyway, idk why we should believe the 12z run of the CFS when the prior 4 runs showed something contrary.  Or maybe you're being facetious again. 

It was a joke; a juxtapositional allusion to the CFS multiple runs per day approach to monthly and seasonal forecasting. 

As to the request for a link, I can't find a free site that will allow you to see today's 12Z set. Most sites are either a day or two old (TT is) or they blend the last X-days worth of runs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, nj2va said:

BN temps too.  Though I'm sure it'll be different the next time it runs. :)

That's the one I was referring to, but it's literally just the 12Z run. There've been multiple single cycle runs that looked far colder and multiple cycles that looked warmer. The Euro weeklies have been doing much the same lately. 

Share this post


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

I remember back in December someone showed an analog based prog that showed what similar sst years looked like during periods of + neutral and - nao. The results during anything other then negative were pretty ugly and about what we have seen. Even JB admitted a while back that some of the factors were hostile this year but he was relying on a lot of blocking. We haven't had that and so the results have been what would be expected. Hopefully we can get a period of favorable blocking in February and salvage some of the season. Without it we probably can get another transient shot of cold or two and pray for good luck to score one or two snow events but that's about the best we can hope for imo without more nao help. 

It's interesting that the set of "snowy February" analog years, now based on five days of GFS, GEFS, and GGEM results, don't seem to have remarkable NAO or PNA averages for the month. They're all freaking cold as in 5F - 8F below longterm average, but the monthly NAOs range from -.5 to +.5 and average at -.1. The PNAs range from -.11 to 1.7 but average out at only .4. The AO, however, is either neutral or negative with an average of -.9.  

Share this post


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

I know that Wes recently reiterated that low height anomalies over Alaska spell major trouble for any winter weather getting here, but this is ridiculous. :weep:

 

 

ecmwf-ens_z500a_namer_11.png

its becomming comical, based on d'aleo commentary, we seem to be stuck in the end of la nina, hence the la nada label. And the MJO signal of euro is complete the opposite of GFS.

Share this post


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

I know that Wes recently reiterated that low height anomalies over Alaska spell major trouble for any winter weather getting here, but this is ridiculous. :weep:

 

 

 

Yeah, you definitely don't want a trough over AK. The death nail, however, is when a strong PV sets up shop over AK. When that happens you can count on losing the next six weeks easily (if not the entire winter).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mdsnowlover said:

its becomming comical, based on d'aleo commentary, we seem to be stuck in the end of la nina, hence the la nada label. And the MJO signal of euro is complete the opposite of GFS.

The MJO looks to be progressing rather quickly through 7 and 8 and then into 1 and 2, right? The problem is it's been decidedly low amplitude this season. It's been an almost useless index. If I'm remembering correctly, however, the upcoming P1 and P2 amplitude is about as high and amplitude as we've seen this winter? 

Share this post


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

It's interesting that the set of "snowy February" analog years, now based on five days of GFS, GEFS, and GGEM results, don't seem to have remarkable NAO or PNA averages for the month. They're all freaking cold as in 5F - 8F below longterm average, but the monthly NAOs range from -.5 to +.5 and average at -.1. The PNAs range from -.11 to 1.7 but average out at only .4. The AO, however, is either neutral or negative with an average of -.9.  

Yea that is odd that neither pna nor nao pop out as helpful. Of course a slightly negative nao and pos pna in combo can do it. Epo can help also. It's also possible that feb those months featured variability and the less favorable periods washed out the better in the monthly mean. But I know 1993 was on the list and it got there with anomalous high heights in western Canada but a positive nao. Of course we won't discuss how that winter ended. 2007 managed cold without much nao help and I always thought with just a bit better Atlantic that month could have been epic. I'd have to look at them all but those two pop out in my memory as cold without nao help. Perhaps that argues we can get a better month without it. Perhaps the PAC will evolve to a better look on its own. Seasonal progression could lead to a different look with the same variables I guess  

Share this post


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

Yea that is odd that neither pna nor nao pop out as helpful. Of course a slightly negative nao and pos pna in combo can do it. Epo can help also. It's also possible that feb those months featured variability and the less favorable periods washed out the better in the monthly mean. But I know 1993 was on the list and it got there with anomalous high heights in western Canada but a positive nao. Of course we won't discuss how that winter ended. 2007 managed cold without much nao help and I always thought with just a bit better Atlantic that month could have been epic. I'd have to look at them all but those two pop out in my memory as cold without nao help. Perhaps that argues we can get a better month without it. Perhaps the PAC will evolve to a better look on its own. Seasonal progression could lead to a different look with the same variables I guess  

:lol: Yeah, lets talk 93.

I'd trade 5 straight snowless winters to experience March 93 again, only this time before the 10th of February.  Wouldn't that be incredible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WinterWxLuvr said:

:lol: Yeah, lets talk 93.

I'd trade 5 straight snowless winters to experience March 93 again, only this time before the 10th of February.  Wouldn't that be incredible.

Yes ...this . 93 was mother nature on absolute steroids man. Incredible !!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes ...this . 93 was mother nature on absolute steroids man. Incredible !!!!


i tend to think i wont see another 1993 like storm in my lifetime - in fact nothing out of the gulf has even come close since. it was probably a 100 year event and maybe more - but i do dream of being on the cold side of a bomb like that one day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

93 had to be a 500 year storm..period.

96' was incredible 

83' was incredible 

2- 10 -10 was incredible ( miller B)

 

93' was a big step up from these storms..especially if you lived 40 miles n/w of 95 or more.....jmo.

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.

×