The Mystical Month of February--Long Range Discussion

[Jandurin]

9 minutes ago, Mdecoy said:

Given how bad guidance has been (72 hours out everyone thought a Saturday 3-5 inch DC snowstorm was a lock). I think it is really best to take the models for Wednesday with a grain of salt. Anything from success to complete failure is probably on the table until at least Monday night.

IF things go right, we'll have more than a grain of salt

 

on the roads

ba

dum

tish

[Jandurin]

for me, the icon has long surpassed the CMC in terms of "I'll look at this and believe it has an idea of what's going on"

[snowmagnet]

6 minutes ago, stormtracker said:

Hey everyone.  Models could be right next week.  They could be wrong.   It could snow, or it could rain.  Everything is on the table. Watch the models.   It could be a success, there could be failure.  It may be sunny, or it could be cloudy.   Next week, I may not eat, but I probably will.   It's all on the table.  

I think that will be everyone’s Winter Forecast for 2019-2020.  

[EastCoast NPZ]

22 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

Well...2013-14 wasn't terrible, now was it? We were just coming out of a nina then...And we have had two-year ENSO events before (I just listed this decade. There were others. I'd suggest looking through our history a bit more...You'll see that the probability of getting 3 more bad winters is kinda low based on our history. Oh, and solar minimums are good to us more often than not )

13-14 was a fluke, a complete aberration.  It should have been a skunk.  When I said "stroke of good fortune" .... there ya go.  If you're counting on that again, then good luck to you.  

[Fozz]

35 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

Well...2013-14 wasn't terrible, now was it? We were just coming out of a nina then...And we have had two-year ENSO events before (I just listed this decade. There were others. I'd suggest looking through our history a bit more...You'll see that the probability of getting 3 more bad winters is kinda low based on our history. Oh, and solar minimums are good to us more often than not )

No, 2012-13 was the neutral that followed two Ninas. 2013-14 was the second neutral winter in a row.

[Maestrobjwa]

Just now, Fozz said:

No, 2012-13 was the neutral that followed two Ninas. 2013-14 was the second neutral winter in a row.

Yeah that's what I meant (he had said neutrals following ninas were crappy, so that's why I mentioned that year, lol)

[Maestrobjwa]

8 minutes ago, EastCoast NPZ said:

13-14 was a fluke, a complete aberration.  It should have been a skunk.  When I said "stroke of good fortune" .... there ya go.  If you're counting on that again, then good luck to you.  

Nope, not counting on that by itself...but rather...history. We don't stay below average snowfall 6 consecutive years very often at all (only happened once in over 136 years of records). Even 4 consecutive years is kinda rare. So history argues against your 2023 theory (that and the fact that no enso forecast can be confidently made this early)

[Ji]

okay...its friday. Im back. Hopefully with a better attitude!

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

25 minutes ago, stormtracker said:

I am  announcing that I am officially recognizing the ICON as a legit model.  It has been the first to sniff out a lot of trends and it was pointed out to me by a poster (who I wish would wake the hell up and come back to this board and start posting) how it killed it during some past events and you know what?  They were right.   Sure, it wobbles, but I need to go ahead and admit I was wrong about it being a totally shit model.   Is it Euro level?  Shut up Euro.  For me, the Euro is still an MVP, but past it’s prime years.  Verification scores, etc etc.  I know.  Still….Icon, I apologize.   That is all.

 

Now let’s get back to generating 90 pages of content for an event that will fail 36 hours before hand.  It’s what we do…and we do it well.

That is quite an...iconic statement! 

And I never knew Chuck was the Euro!

[psuhoffman]

9 hours ago, frd said:

Hey psu have you lost faith in weather modeling in general, I have .

The models are like decaying cow guts.  Rotten and smelly with a stench of failure and a hint of , SUCKERS   #$%#&*&(&^!!!

I dont want to hear in December about the WEAKLIES I believe it when I can make a snowball ........  

Maybe it is climate change ..... No I didn't. LOL 

 

My opinion of NWP has not changed one bit this year.  Inside 72-100  hours...when they are actually meant to be useful... they have been fine.  There have been no major busts inside that range.  Even this weekend...that was a weak sauce wave and anyone shocked it gets squashed doesn't know how to interpret guidance.  The signs that COULD happen were there.  It's not a major bust that such a weak wave trended a little weaker/souther.  It wasn't a major shock that the December storm trended a little north some at the last minute...major juiced up STJ systems almost always do the last 48 hours.  If you know how to add a little bit of sound climo/physics common sense to the guidance they have been and are very useful inside the medium range.

At 100-200 hours they give some clues and general ideas but not specifics.  Exact storm tracks will change and details wont be perfect...but the guidance has been "OK" there also.  Outside 200 hours they are very very low probability.  The verification scores day 10-15 are barely above climo.  The CMC has been running BELOW climo actually lol.  They sometimes can be useful in years where they are picking up on the major pattern drivers well.  This was obviously not one of them.  But that is common.  People were asking about 2013/14 and there were several times that year where the 10-15 day looked pretty bad and in reality we ended up with snowstorms during that time.  Models kept trying to pump the SE ridge and in reality it kept being suppressed by pressing cold and pieces or lobes of the TPV peeling off and coming across to our north.  In that case it was kind of similar to this year.  TYPICALLY a -epo +nao driven pattern will not end well for us.  The boundary USUALLY ends up to our NW.  That year we kept getting perfect ancillary influences to help but the guidance wasn't seeing it well at range and kept pulling the cold back.  It never happened other than one period around xmas (just forecast a warm xmas period every year).  

I never use the NWP at 15 days as the basis of my forecast.  I didn't use the seasonal guidance as the basis of my winter forecast.  I used "guesses" about the dominant pattern influences based on the current conditions in the fall and then looked at analogs and basic pattern recognition.  That forecast was supported by the guidance and so that added a degree of confidence (falsely).  But I never used the NWP at those time ranges to form a forecast, only to support it.  Day 10+ guidance should never be more than just a small puzzle piece in putting together a long range forecast.  

Frankly I think being upset at NWP this year is silly because we humans were no better.  Myself at least, I kept falling for the same things the guidance did.  Why should I hold the computers to a higher standard???  I saw the same exact things they saw and that was why I kept getting fooled by the looks, the guidance was showing what I expected also.  Maybe there was a feedback loop there where the guidance was helping to blind me to other factors, but that is shame on me not them.

In the end it was a bad year for long range forecasting because some of the assumptions made by humans and computers about what would drive the pattern turned out to be wrong.  It happens.  We move on.  But nothing that happened this year changed my opinion of numerical based weather prediction.  

4 hours ago, showmethesnow said:

Looking over the EPS and the GEFS and it is actually a pretty good look in the extended. (Where have we heard that before? ) Actually might be some signals showing up roughly day 13-15 for a decent storm as well (And Ji notice I didn't say Snowstorm? Just storm? So it could be rain or snow if there is a storm?). And it is only 2 WEEKS AWAY. 

YES its working....I am gonna bob chill troll our way back into this!  Hopefully my little fun last night didn't annoy you too much but my god it was getting crazy with the immediate emotional stress reactions to every model run and I decided to have a little fun with CAPE.  

3 hours ago, C.A.P.E. said:

EPS has been flattening/shunting the eastern ridge at day 15 for a while now. It's always at D15 though. GEFS had been getting a trough over the east sooner, but in recent runs it looks more like the EPS. It looks like we are going to have to deal with some degree of ridging and hope to score something when we get some NS confluence and it flattens some. Also, you might as well forget about a legitimate -NAO at this point. I'm sure the GEFS will keep advertising it, but it likely never verifies in real time.

IF....if if if....the evolution we fear is correct there would still be an opportunity around the beginning of March.  As the trough out west lifts northeast it would compress the flow and create confluence to our north.  That would temporarily suppress the boundary to our south for a while.  There would be a window to get a wave to stay under us around then.  The GFS keeps hitting that time period and there is support for that.  But it would be temporary and then by March 7-10 Winter would be over if the NAO goes positive.  The NAO really is the key to that evolution.  IF the NAO stays even just slightly negative it would force the trough under it and suddenly its not a bad look.  But if the NAO doesn't cooperate and that trough lifts... its game over once that happens.  

One thing about that though.  In a conversation with Ian and HM, Ian said something interesting about a month ago...how many winters has the NAO been mainly positive and then just flipped hard negative in the middle of the winter.  The answer is not many if any at all recently.  Even in winters where the sensible weather flipped and there was blocking...there had been some bouts of major blocking earlier in winter...it just hadn't worked out.  But there are not a lot of examples where there was no major blocking at all through mid winter and then it just flipped late January or early February.  I took note of that...but should have weighted it more obviously.  

However...there are examples where there was no blocking all winter and it flipped in late Feb and March.  The sudden changing of the wavelenghts that time of year changes the equation.  So perhaps blocking might be more possible as we head into March.  Maybe... not counting on it just saying its not as statistically unlikely from a historical perspective.  

[CAPE]

10 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

 

IF....if if if....the evolution we fear is correct there would still be an opportunity around the beginning of March.  As the trough out west lifts northeast it would compress the flow and create confluence to our north.  That would temporarily suppress the boundary to our south for a while.  There would be a window to get a wave to stay under us around then.  The GFS keeps hitting that time period and there is support for that.  But it would be temporary and then by March 7-10 Winter would be over if the NAO goes positive.  The NAO really is the key to that evolution.  IF the NAO stays even just slightly negative it would force the trough under it and suddenly its not a bad look.  But if the NAO doesn't cooperate and that trough lifts... its game over once that happens.  

One thing about that though.  In a conversation with Ian and HM, Ian said something interesting about a month ago...how many winters has the NAO been mainly positive and then just flipped hard negative in the middle of the winter.  The answer is not many if any at all recently.  Even in winters where the sensible weather flipped and there was blocking...there had been some bouts of major blocking earlier in winter...it just hadn't worked out.  But there are not a lot of examples where there was no major blocking at all through mid winter and then it just flipped late January or early February.  I took note of that...but should have weighted it more obviously.  

However...there are examples where there was no blocking all winter and it flipped in late Feb and March.  The sudden changing of the wavelenghts that time of year changes the equation.  So perhaps blocking might be more possible as we head into March.  Maybe... not counting on it just saying its not as statistically unlikely from a historical perspective.  

Might get something transient. but outside of that I doubt it. Now had the Nino actually developed as expected, we could have seen blocking materialize for the last half of winter, as there does seem to be a correlation there during a Modoki Nino. Still might not have worked out though with the SWE and the QBO trends.

[EastCoast NPZ]

36 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

Nope, not counting on that by itself...but rather...history. We don't stay below average snowfall 6 consecutive years very often at all (only happened once in over 136 years of records). Even 4 consecutive years is kinda rare. So history argues against your 2023 theory (that and the fact that no enso forecast can be confidently made this early)

Again, weather is not looking to even up scores.  Each is it's own year.  We should have been normal last 2 years, we just had terrible luck.  We should have been above normal this year, many are in fact very close.  For those of us still way below, again, even worse luck.  We likely see multiple Nina's before we get another nino.  Odds strongly favor more below normal winters.  A fluke winter, or huge storm, can never be ruled out completely, so don't let me Deb the hope out of you.

[frd]

47 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Frankly I think being upset at NWP this year is silly because we humans were no better.  Myself at least, I kept falling for the same things the guidance did.  Why should I hold the computers to a higher standard???  I saw the same exact things they saw and that was why I kept getting fooled by the looks, the guidance was showing what I expected also.  Maybe there was a feedback loop there where the guidance was helping to blind me to other factors, but that is shame on me not them.

In the end it was a bad year for long range forecasting because some of the assumptions made by humans and computers about what would drive the pattern turned out to be wrong.  It happens.  We move on.  But nothing that happened this year changed my opinion of numerical based weather prediction.  

Interesting view psu. I tend to follow along those lines of reasoning myself. 

I guess I should have clarified my dismay and comment about weather modeling was more so focused in the long range. Specifically the long range seasonal models and yes, the Euro weeklies as well , at least inside week 3. 

And good point too, both humans and machines saw the same things for the winter, and that for me was a HUGE positive. 

Weather is so unpredictable even in 2019. I am guilty of putting too much faith into the ling range guideance.  I am a weenie.  I think at times that clouds my judgement. 

  

[yoda]

12z ICON is another big hit... snowmaps impressive considering its the ICON

[LP08]

Just now, yoda said:

12z ICON is another big hit 

Mid 20's and heavy precip.  Very nice.

[yoda]

Just now, LP08 said:

Mid 20's and heavy precip.  Very nice.

Snowmap is way better than even 00z 

[Jandurin]

2 minutes ago, yoda said:

12z ICON is another big hit... snowmaps impressive considering its the ICON

Right after stormtracker blesses the model

COINCIDENCE?

[yoda]

[LP08]

Since Randy lifted the ICON ban....  Never above freezing through out the duration at the surface.

[stormtracker]

See what happens when I declare a model legit?  You're welcome.   

[yoda]

Just now, LP08 said:

Since Randy lifted the ICON ban....  Never above freezing through out the duration at the surface.

I95 S and E may sneak above freezing by 135... but by that time, precip is mostly done

[stormtracker]

The ICON is destruction.......I mean relative to this winter.

[stormtracker]

Just now, yoda said:

I95 S and E may sneak above freezing by 135... but by that time, precip is mostly done

Oh Yoder.  And you were doing so well.  

[yoda]

Just now, stormtracker said:

Oh Yoder.  And you were doing so well.  

I know, but have to be honest with what it shows lol... Wes gets 6" of snow to ice to drizzle

[frd]

@psuhoffman

thought this was an interesting post by bluewave

Wonder if indeed the Super Nino is the cause. 

I mean the stats are for NYC but it fits here as well 

 

from bluewave :

<<<

It looks like the atmosphere temporarily lost the recipie for making cold winters here after the 15-16 super El Niño.This is the 4th winter in a row with above average temperatures.The 2010’s will work out to 6 above average winters to 4 below.

NYC 35.1 current average

2018-2019	36.4	14
2017-2018	36.2	0
2016-2017	39.3	0
2015-2016	41.0	0
2014-2015	31.4	0
2013-2014	32.9	0
2012-2013	36.8	0
2011-2012	40.5	0
2010-2011	32.8	0
2009-2010	33.8	0

>>>>>

[Scraff]

1 hour ago, Ji said:

okay...its friday. Im back. Hopefully with a better attitude!

Hey wait. But it’s Saturday in Australia. Lol

[Scraff]

6 minutes ago, yoda said:

We cautiously abscond!

[psuhoffman]

1 hour ago, Maestrobjwa said:

Well...2013-14 wasn't terrible, now was it? We were just coming out of a nina then...And we have had two-year ENSO events before (I just listed this decade. There were others. I'd suggest looking through our history a bit more...You'll see that the probability of getting 3 more bad winters is kinda low based on our history. Oh, and solar minimums are good to us more often than not )

I debated not even saying all this because it's going to truly depress you and maybe some others but you know what...ignorance is not the answer so here goes...

You are not using the statistics correctly.  First of all you cannot apply today's Baltimore climo averages to every time period.  In the late 1800's and early 1900s Baltimore averaged 25" of snow and their median was 26" for example.  So a 20" snowfall year then was below average and the same statistically as like a 16" year now.  You have to use the climo averages for each time period to determine if a year was above or below average snowfall.

Looking at the correct climo for each period Baltimore has had 7 periods of 4 or more straight below average snowfall in less than 150 years of records.  That isn't an insignificant total.  Twice Baltimore had 9 straight years with below average snowfall.  So think...we might have 5 more years of below average snowfall to go after this one!!!!  It happened twice before.

On top of that you cannot simply look at the pure number of times there was 4 straight below average snowfall years because yes going into any run of below average snow the odds of getting 4 or more is low...but if we already had 3 (and that is assuming we don't get enough snow the rest of the way to end up above this year) then you are looking at it the wrong way.   We have already had 3 straight below average snowfall years...what you need to do is look at past such examples and see what happened the following year and what the odds are of above vs below avg snowfall.  

There have been 34 times Baltimore just ended a 3rd straight below average snowfall winter... so what happened the next winter those 34 times?

24 times the following year was below average snowfall

10 times the following winter was above average snowfall

So by those pure statistics next year has a 71 percent chance of being below average snowfall!

That is almost exactly what the random chance of a below average snowfall winter is any given year...73%.

Yea 73%.... in the last 30 years Baltimore has only had 8 above average snowfall winters, and 22 below.  Those are facts.  Any given year our chances of having above average snowfall are only 27%.  Based on history...if we finish this year below avg next year that chance would be 29%.  That is not a statistically significant difference given the limited sample size.  In others words there is absolutely no evidence to support your claim that we are more likely to get above average snow next year because we had 3 below avg years...the odds are about the same as they are any year... a little below 30%.  

 

[Jandurin]

The odds of flipping a coin is the same every time.

Assuming a fair coin.

[Deer Whisperer]

1 hour ago, Ji said:

okay...its friday. Im back. Hopefully with a better attitude!

Lying is a sin Ji