Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

January 2022 Obs/Disco


NorEastermass128
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

If next winter sucks, that will be a first...I have never had five consecutive shitty seasons dating back to 1956...not even the 80's pulled that off. We are in rarified suckitude here.

My worst period was 96/97 through 99/00 4 consecutive below average snowfall seasons with one season only 3.5 inches of snow!!!!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yea, shit like that I cut out this week.

I will still look at the models when I wake up but now I know not to take them seriously unless the Euro , GFS and CMC all show something similar before 200 hours. I will start tracking below 200 hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Baroclinic Zone said:

You know you'll get :weenie: for saying such things.

I mean maybe...but it's really hard to make up 50"+ in like a 5-6 week span which is where we'd be by early February....for the epic snow belt towns in south-central CT, they have more wiggle room to reach average, but up here, we're way behind climo and you need snow events every so often not to fall too far behind.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MJO812 said:

I will still look at the models when I wake up but now I know not to take them seriously unless the Euro , GFS and CMC all show something similar before 200 hours. I will start tracking below 200 hours.

Not even looking right now...I'll see from here and social media if anything warrants. I'm plugged in enough....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Frustration on this garbage winter aside....if we're looking for the best windows here, it's still Jan 25-26....there is still pretty decent ensemble support for that system.

Then I'd prob look at Jan 29-30th and Feb 2nd....those are two dates that have some weak ensemble signals.

Flying to England on February 2nd, so you can probably look that in to %#@* up my travel plans,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

I have lost so much sleep staying up for the shitty Euro.  I don't even stay up anymore for the gfs past 240 hours. It's a waste.

Why? Why would anyone ever stay up late or all night or set alarms to look at a model? They’ll still be there to see in the morning.. along with the 6z . Just totally blows my mind 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Why? Why would anyone ever stay up late or all night or set alarms to look at a model? They’ll still be there to see in the morning.. along with the 6z . Just totally blows my mind 

I get a boner when the late shift models show something nice. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Why? Why would anyone ever stay up late or all night or set alarms to look at a model? They’ll still be there to see in the morning.. along with the 6z . Just totally blows my mind 

We've obviously entered bizzaro world when DIT is the one making reasonable posts

  • Haha 5
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

It all evens out...shit like that always broke right in years like 2015 and 2005. I'm over it...whatever happens, happens. I am honestly starting to wonder about futility....I am at 10" heading into the final week of January. I very well may make it to Feb at 10"...short list of seasons that have pulled that off. 1979-80 (futility season of 19.9"), 1988-1989 (20.3"), 1994-1995 (22.5") and 2006-2007 (34.5")

Normal season for me is around 65".

 

35 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I would say of those 4 seasons, 1979-1980 is most comparable.

Building off of my reference to 1979-1980....its really not a bad analog so far.

Here is the seasonal H5 pattern to date to this point......vs the composite of my 4 seasons of 10" or less by Feb 1, and finally compared to just 1979-80.

Note that while this year is NOT a good match to those ratters, due in large part to the neg NAO and lack of a death vortex around AK, 1979-1980 by itself is not a bad match at all.

 

Now.gif

 

 

Then.png

1979-1980.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

We probably would have been better off without the NAO block in December, given the magnitude of the RNA....would have been some front enders as opposed to nothing but compression.

Mm ... matter of subjective analysis, but I wonder if that "what if" would be so...   If the -NAO was not a part of the larger synoptic circulatory manifold, I suspect autumn of 2006 ... 1999, with a flat ridge sans any meaningful CAA events through that month as likelier. Particularly 2006, stringing days near 60 ... even briefly 70 F. 

That also happened back in 1999 I believe it was...though it may not have lasted the whole month. I recall a six day stretch in the high 60s, two days of which were in the 70s that December.  Both then, 2006 were dominating -PNA with virtually 0 polar mass field modulation S of the 50th parallel.    I suspect "would have been" 2021.  But that's my take -

Having said all that... I agree this year's NAO was too aggressive, either way. 

What "if" we modulated that -NAO less strong?   I have a personal hypothesis: we needed to modulate the -PNA less dominating, because that's the source-origin.  The -NAO's character was driven by the former.  It's complex, but, the super-synoptic forcing came from non-linear wave mechanics.  

Think 'rogue wave' phenomenon in the oceans.  You have A, B, C, D ... H waves rolling/interacting, constructively and destructively interfering. That type of interaction means waves B and C may physically dump energy into H, while the wave spaces in between do not apparently observe effects.  This is as opposed to linear wave interaction, where A directly influence B ... directly influences C ... F and so on.  The flow was fast ( what's new since 2002 ~), and the mean polar jet suppressed along the west coast/Rockies, and instead of big direct, linear response of a ridge over the OV, there was a flat ridge, with even a modest trough in the west Atlantic. But all that stored momentum then buckled the flow hugely over ( in particular...) the western limb of the NAO domain region - that's H in this example.  It gives the allusion of the NAO obtruding exertion, but it is ultimately caused by the same RNA.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Mm ... matter of subjective analysis, but I wonder if that "what if" would be so...   If the -NAO was not a part of the larger synoptic circulatory manifold, I suspect autumn of 2006 ... 1999, with a flat ridge sans any meaningful CAA events through that month as likelier. Particularly 2006, stringing days near 60 ... even briefly 70 F. 

That also happened back in 1999 I believe it was...though it may not have lasted the whole month. I recall a six day stretch in the high 60s, two days of which were in the 70s that December.  Both then, 2006 were dominating -PNA with virtually 0 polar mass field modulation S of the 50th parallel.    I suspect "would have been" 2021.  But that's my take -

Having said all that... I agree this year's NAO was too aggressive, either way. 

What "if" we modulated that -NAO less strong?   I have a personal hypothesis: That we needed to modulate the -PNA less dominating, because that's the source-origin.  The -NAO's character was driven by the former.  It's complex, but, the super-synoptic forcing came from non-linear wave mechanics.  

Think 'rogue wave' phenomenon in the oceans.  You have A, B, C, D ... H waves rolling/interacting, constructively and destructively interfering. That type of interaction means waves B and C may physically dump energy into H, while the wave spaces in between do not apparently observe effects.  This is as opposed to linear wave interaction, where A directly influence B ... directly influences C ... F and so on.  The flow was fast ( what's new since 2002 ~), and the mean polar jet suppressed along the west coast/Rockies, and instead of big direct, linear response of a ridge over the OV, there was a flat ridge, with even a modest trough in the west Atlantic. But all that stored momentum then buckled the flow hugely over ( in particular...) the western limb of the NAO domain region - that's H in this example.  It gives the allusion of the NAO obtruding exertion, but it is ultimately caused by the same RNA.

Anyway,

Yea, I didn't mean a death vortex in the arctic....just not a huge block. I agree the Pacific ultimately drives the bus....just speaking in a theoretical "what if" sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

If next winter sucks, that will be a first...I have never had five consecutive shitty seasons dating back to 1956...not even the 80's pulled that off. We are in rarified suckitude here.

I think the only winter I can think of that may have saved that was either '87 or '88. Growing up in Granby, CT it's the one winter that saved it being 8 years in a row of suck. The next few were terrible until '92. Even that '88 or whatever I think was barely average, if not below. It just seemed great because of prior years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this run, right now this morning ...is sort of pivotal in 1995 for assessing what happens Tuesday of this next week. 

Not so sure about 2022, tho.   ( has that for spaghetti logic)

Back whence, ...even through 2010-ish, we could almost count on wave mechanical relays from off the Pacific as having been 'under' assessed, and then they get physically sampled and included in the initialization and  ... boom!  Pays dividends to the winter enthusiasts over eastern mid latitudes. If not, one might at least observe better model continuity begin moving forward, also getting cross-guidance contention less distracting, too.  Sometimes when doing so, what came out was a "Boxing Day Storm," short duration pretty babe pay-off. 

I have not seen pay-offs since then, like that.  In fact, I've seen the opposite happen more often.  Different discussion... 

But the S/W presently nosing over western Canada has been erstwhile over the Pacific for days.   It's about to perform an interesting aspect in all the guidance I've scanned.  It bifurcates passing over the Canadian lower cordillera, probably because the +PNA ridge is more likely to be considered a "west biased ridge," which stresses/ .. pulls the wave space apart went it starts descending latitude over that region. Anyway, some 1/3 ( or so..) of the wave energy shears off and tucks briefly over the SW...  the remaining ballast moves progressively across southern Canada. 

It's after that that things get complex..

The energy in the SW gets kicked E as the +PNA ridge tries to reassert back into the west early next week.  The N/stream then fails to show up at the party.  It's too bad too...because the southern stream impulse is plenty to be a phase seeder space, but that N/stream just doesn't contain any meaningful new S/W to drill and have sex.  It's okay though... if that southern ejected energy is better looking, it can put on a good show all alone.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno...in some ways it is liberating to have nothing to track and just to see what happens.  Probably easier when I'm going on my walks through a foot of snow in the woods vs. staring at bare ground.  It is deep winter up here right not.  But also, the models have been so bad recently that things can pop up, overperform, underperform, disappoint and delight. I said a few days ago that we have a good chance of a storm between Jan 23-26, and that is a real possibility.  We'll have a couple more chances before February.  I think most of us get 6-12 between now and Feb 1.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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