Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,300
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    grpigweed
    Newest Member
    grpigweed
    Joined

Winter 2022-2023 Conjecture


40/70 Benchmark
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, bristolri_wx said:

Gotta love the map, with no blog post or even thread comments to explain his thoughts as to why he believes there will be below average temps and above average snow. :clown::clown::clown:

I don’t understand how you put out a winter forecast with zero explanation or discussion, nothing, nada. Just “I think it’s going to be very cold and snowy”. Wow just wow

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JMA updated...models kind of looking stellar for NOV & then DJF kind of looks like a blend of 2020-21 & 2021-22.

NOV

Screenshot_20221017-083921_Chrome.jpg.1a06a85e9061a0993b73f63fc0cdf1c5.jpg

 

DEC

Screenshot_20221017-084001_Chrome.jpg.66b5908da86ffa140b0f392c45af8ae3.jpg

 

JAN

Screenshot_20221017-084035_Chrome.jpg.4655ba281cff54360f9dcf47c3e6e39f.jpg

 

DJF

Screenshot_20221017-085043_Chrome.jpg.5aa0499484c039a733aa84dfed0f58a2.jpg

 

Kind of a blend of 2020-21, 2021-22 with mean trough a little further west.

Screenshot_20221017-084739_Chrome.thumb.jpg.100d15d5b98f960983c585588ac57fab.jpg

 

Now the JMA mean pattern is similar to the upcoming pattern & it could be the monthly & seasonal model output is heavily influenced by that. It happens. Or it could be the upcoming pattern is very much indicative of the winter mean pattern. 

Personally I still think it's too early to know. I lean towards some of NOV & maybe early DEC could be colder pattern & then who knows after that. 

One of the key players is what will the PDO do. Right now it's positive but really means nothing as of yet, it can change in a hurry as Fall N. Pac SST's can fluctuate greatly. I think if we get the earlier peak of La Nina the transition towards +ENSO may be pretty quick &  hold some +PDO. We'll see.

Screenshot_20221017-090203_Chrome.thumb.jpg.21ac9e4d8b190964dc7208acf4561c70.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2022 at 3:29 PM, radarman said:

This is an admission against interest because I was involved in the development of the October snow cover theory at AER back in the early 2000s... but LOL @ blaming AGW for ruining it.  Sample size ruined it.  It's simply not a dominant signal.  All else being equal and null then sure it probably holds some merit. JMO

CC gets blamed for a lot of stuff, and then it gets memory-holed when that "blame" doesn't turn out correct. CC was causing more +NAO/AO in the late 1990s/early 2000s, and then it all of the sudden wasn't....it "changed" and we saw all these papers about low sea ice and -AO/NAO.....then that "changed" too in recent years when had trouble getting big -AO/NAOs. I've actually asked people about this who work in the field and the answer I get is typically something like "there's a lot of pressure to come up with CC attribution studies"....which is understandable, but I wonder if it starts degrading the quality of the research when we try and rush to attribute 5 and 10 year trends (such as with the AO/NAO) to CC. I think the law of large numbers isn't appreciated enough on some of this stuff....hard to get really confident answers when you are using sample sizes in the low 10s.

The only truly robust CC signal we have on winters is warmer temperatures overall (and especially low temperatures), though the temporal/spacial variation is still very large (see central Canada/N plains/N Rockies with a 30 year cooling trend in winter).

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

CC gets blamed for a lot of stuff, and then it gets memory-holed when that "blame" doesn't turn out correct. CC was causing more +NAO/AO in the late 1990s/early 2000s, and then it all of the sudden wasn't....it "changed" and we saw all these papers about low sea ice and -AO/NAO.....then that "changed" too in recent years when had trouble getting big -AO/NAOs. I've actually asked people about this who work in the field and the answer I get is typically something like "there's a lot of pressure to come up with CC attribution studies"....which is understandable, but I wonder if it starts degrading the quality of the research when we try and rush to attribute 5 and 10 year trends (such as with the AO/NAO) to CC. I think the law of large numbers isn't appreciated enough on some of this stuff....hard to get really confident answers when you are using sample sizes in the low 10s.

The only truly robust CC signal we have on winters is warmer temperatures overall (and especially low temperatures), though the temporal/spacial variation is still very large (see central Canada/N plains/N Rockies with a 30 year cooling trend in winter).

 

There's zero doubt! And sadly, there's plenty of grant money available "depending" on the nature of your study. This will bite us at some point. 

The truth is, taking into consideration what you posted we really need to understand while we strive to understand we just simply do not know as much as we would like to think we do. 

Makes you wonder what else we'll be wrong about? Very important not to make knee jerk reactions to every "new" study. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, stadiumwave said:

 

There's zero doubt! And sadly, there's plenty of grant money available "depending" on the nature of your study. This will bite us at some point. 

The truth is, taking into consideration what you posted we really need to understand while we strive to understand we just simply do not know as much as we would like to think we do. 

Makes you wonder what else we'll be wrong about? Very important not to make knee jerk reactions to every "new" study. 

I think it’s also human nature to want an explanation for every deviation. Nobody wants to hear “we don’t actually know why the AO/NAO went through these large shifts over 10 year periods”. 
 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stadiumwave said:

JMA updated...models kind of looking stellar for NOV & then DJF kind of looks like a blend of 2020-21 & 2021-22.

NOV

Screenshot_20221017-083921_Chrome.jpg.1a06a85e9061a0993b73f63fc0cdf1c5.jpg

 

DEC

Screenshot_20221017-084001_Chrome.jpg.66b5908da86ffa140b0f392c45af8ae3.jpg

 

JAN

Screenshot_20221017-084035_Chrome.jpg.4655ba281cff54360f9dcf47c3e6e39f.jpg

 

DJF

Screenshot_20221017-085043_Chrome.jpg.5aa0499484c039a733aa84dfed0f58a2.jpg

 

Kind of a blend of 2020-21, 2021-22 with mean trough a little further west.

Screenshot_20221017-084739_Chrome.thumb.jpg.100d15d5b98f960983c585588ac57fab.jpg

 

Now the JMA mean pattern is similar to the upcoming pattern & it could be the monthly & seasonal model output is heavily influenced by that. It happens. Or it could be the upcoming pattern is very much indicative of the winter mean pattern. 

Personally I still think it's too early to know. I lean towards some of NOV & maybe early DEC could be colder pattern & then who knows after that. 

One of the key players is what will the PDO do. Right now it's positive but really means nothing as of yet, it can change in a hurry as Fall N. Pac SST's can fluctuate greatly. I think if we get the earlier peak of La Nina the transition towards +ENSO may be pretty quick &  hold some +PDO. We'll see.

Screenshot_20221017-090203_Chrome.thumb.jpg.21ac9e4d8b190964dc7208acf4561c70.jpg

The “looking stellar” aspect of November (than waning out ) is kind of really what’s been going on as part of the climate change signal, with the folding hemisphere/early meridional expression stuff that’s being papered.
… said papers being mathematical.

As we get into December January February the hemisphere reaches its highest compressed state so the wind velocity in the interface between the Farrell and Hadley cells (steepest mean) reach their seasonal strongest… And that stretches the x-coordinate —>reducing planetary wave numbers …. which tends to pancake or offset rather, the meridional autumn…

I was snarky last page… But in a more levelheaded approach I really don’t have a good feeling about this winter as behaving much different than the last several - which really all have kind of taken us through that journey every year with early blocks and high convoluted flow types tending to end up being fast and more “sheery “

I do acknowledge some caveat emptors, however. … willing to see how it plays out 

One, still not completely sold we’re not gonna have some kind of interference with normal stratospheric chemistry —> thermal disruptions due to volcanism over the last year. How and or if that even does so is available to question.  I haven’t found any specific empirical evidence that the stratosphere was infused but who knows…

Two, I’m also curious about the GRB that just took place - deep field astrophysical phenomenon. Though it was 2.5 billion light years away this actually set records for the most intense x-ray and cosmic ray burst ever recorded - not sure if that distinction is relative to that distance scale. But that’s what’s being reported.  There was a defined ionospheric modulation when that event swept through our solar system. It’s long but known that sudden stratospheric warming events modulate TEC from the bottom up … Strong enough GRB event might “cleanse” some ozone population out if the PV column high up in the stratosphere anyway … 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, stadiumwave said:

JMA updated...models kind of looking stellar for NOV & then DJF kind of looks like a blend of 2020-21 & 2021-22.

NOV

Screenshot_20221017-083921_Chrome.jpg.1a06a85e9061a0993b73f63fc0cdf1c5.jpg

 

DEC

Screenshot_20221017-084001_Chrome.jpg.66b5908da86ffa140b0f392c45af8ae3.jpg

 

JAN

Screenshot_20221017-084035_Chrome.jpg.4655ba281cff54360f9dcf47c3e6e39f.jpg

 

DJF

Screenshot_20221017-085043_Chrome.jpg.5aa0499484c039a733aa84dfed0f58a2.jpg

 

Kind of a blend of 2020-21, 2021-22 with mean trough a little further west.

Screenshot_20221017-084739_Chrome.thumb.jpg.100d15d5b98f960983c585588ac57fab.jpg

 

Now the JMA mean pattern is similar to the upcoming pattern & it could be the monthly & seasonal model output is heavily influenced by that. It happens. Or it could be the upcoming pattern is very much indicative of the winter mean pattern. 

Personally I still think it's too early to know. I lean towards some of NOV & maybe early DEC could be colder pattern & then who knows after that. 

One of the key players is what will the PDO do. Right now it's positive but really means nothing as of yet, it can change in a hurry as Fall N. Pac SST's can fluctuate greatly. I think if we get the earlier peak of La Nina the transition towards +ENSO may be pretty quick &  hold some +PDO. We'll see.

Screenshot_20221017-090203_Chrome.thumb.jpg.21ac9e4d8b190964dc7208acf4561c70.jpg

The PDO is not positive at all, in fact it’s strongly negative. Look at all the extremely warm waters by Japan. It’s obviously negative and looks to remain so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

The PDO is not positive at all, in fact it’s strongly negative. Look at all the extremely warm waters by Japan. It’s obviously negative and will remain so 

I dunno if I’d call that strongly negative. It’s kind of a weird looking map right now. You also want cold waters hugging the AK coast near Canada during a negative PDO and it’s the opposite right now.
 

It’s def negative overall due to the previously stated bath water south of Aleutians but not as negative as it has been the past few months. 

I don’t expect it to trend much upward either until this Niña dies out. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

I dunno if I’d call that strongly negative. It’s kind of a weird looking map right now. You also want cold waters hugging the AK coast near Canada during a negative PDO and it’s the opposite right now.
 

It’s def negative overall due to the previously stated bath water south of Aleutians but not as negative as it has been the past few months. 

I don’t expect it to trend much upward either until this Niña dies out. 

If I’m not mistaken I think the official number for September was -2? But yea, it’s not AS negative as it’s been and I agree about it not trending up until the Niña is gone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, snowman19 said:

If I’m not mistaken I think the official number for September was -2? But yea, it’s not AS negative as it’s been and I agree about it not trending up until the Niña is gone

 

The number is basically irrelevant at times & this is absolutely one of those. As the other poster said overa it is a -PDO by official measurements. But if you're looking at this & thinking typical -PDO at the moment ...then :whistle:

This is fall & fall SST's can change quickly. So it's not indicative necessarily for winter. However if the warm waters remain in N. PAC & off Cali coast during winter there's going to be a lot of ridging out west regardless if it's "official" -PDO or +PDO. That's the point. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

CC gets blamed for a lot of stuff, and then it gets memory-holed when that "blame" doesn't turn out correct. CC was causing more +NAO/AO in the late 1990s/early 2000s, and then it all of the sudden wasn't....it "changed" and we saw all these papers about low sea ice and -AO/NAO.....then that "changed" too in recent years when had trouble getting big -AO/NAOs. I've actually asked people about this who work in the field and the answer I get is typically something like "there's a lot of pressure to come up with CC attribution studies"....which is understandable, but I wonder if it starts degrading the quality of the research when we try and rush to attribute 5 and 10 year trends (such as with the AO/NAO) to CC. I think the law of large numbers isn't appreciated enough on some of this stuff....hard to get really confident answers when you are using sample sizes in the low 10s.

The only truly robust CC signal we have on winters is warmer temperatures overall (and especially low temperatures), though the temporal/spacial variation is still very large (see central Canada/N plains/N Rockies with a 30 year cooling trend in winter).

It also depends on how people read/take in the information.  "Attribution studies" shouldn't be disrespected, either - if it's done right, and the chi test is > .05 side blah blah, but the calculatons don't mean 100% causality - in other words, it may not be entirely why, but is at least partial. 

That is not well understood, and those that write the papers are careful to point that sort of statistical theory out, but it seems to fail to get across... 

I've read posits ... nothing from them were very declarative.   Meanwhile, I'm constantly hearing reprisals of other people's work that sounds like 'so and so said this because of that' - which isn't usually what that source stating.   This happens a lot.  We don't live in an "information responsible" society, not from private sector recounting, not from major media... not much in between, nor for the 'water coolers' either.  We've become increasingly irresponsible 'liars' in a lot of ways. Particularly if we need to cherry pick to fit narratives ...and on and on... 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

It also depends on how people read/take in the information.  "Attribution studies" shouldn't be disrespected, either - if it's done right, and the chi test is > .05 side blah blah, but the calculatons don't mean 100% causality - in other words, it may not be entirely why, but is at least partial. 

That is not well understood, and those that write the papers are careful to point that sort of statistical theory out, but it seems to fail to get across... 

I've read posits ... nothing from them were very declarative.   Meanwhile, I'm constantly hearing reprisals of other people's work that sounds like 'so and so said this because of that' - which isn't usually what that source stating.   This happens a lot.  We don't live in an "information responsible" society, not from private sector recounting, not from major media... not much in between, nor for the 'water coolers' either.  We've become increasingly irresponsible 'liars' in a lot of ways. Particularly if we need to cherry pick to fit narratives ...and on and on... 

 

 

Like Ian being a carbon footprint. #bologna 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, stadiumwave said:

 

The number is basically irrelevant at times & this is absolutely one of those. As the other poster said overa it is a -PDO by official measurements. But if you're looking at this & thinking typical -PDO at the moment ...then :whistle:

This is fall & fall SST's can change quickly. So it's not indicative necessarily for winter. However if the warm waters remain in N. PAC & off Cali coast during winter there's going to be a lot of ridging out west regardless if it's "official" -PDO or +PDO. That's the point. 

 

 

The PNA and PDO are not as highly correlated as many think.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I don't think it's a horrible analog..flawed, sure, but there are certainly much worse.

I think he was saying “horrible” in that he didn’t want to experience that winter again down where he is. 
 

Despite the March ‘01 debacle down there, it actually wasn’t a bad winter for NYC. They got the big 12/30/00 storm, though 2/5/01 there was excruciating (big snow just to the west) and of course the March bust. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

I think he was saying “horrible” in that he didn’t want to experience that winter again down where he is. 
 

Despite the March ‘01 debacle down there, it actually wasn’t a bad winter for NYC. They got the big 12/30/00 storm, though 2/5/01 there was excruciating (big snow just to the west) and of course the March bust. 

Eastern Mass got screwed in 12/30/00.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Eastern Mass got screwed in 12/30/00.

Yeah basically inside of 128 got screwed with BL temps. But even out in ORH where we stayed all snow, we got dryslotted horribly after 10 inches. 
 

It was a good storm but nothing amazing…and seeing the deformation band out in E NY down to NNJ made it less appealing too. 

  • 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...