Is we back? February discussion thread

[WinterWolf]

56 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Fast flow . It’s been there all winter . It’s the Pacific 

I guess VA, and NC and SC and the whole SE, and Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland, and the Midwest…the flow doesn’t bother them. It Only hurts SNE?  I don’t know, I really don’t buy that. But it doesn’t really matter.   We’ll get our turn with a good coastal…but for now we watch other areas get them. 
 

It’s not just one thing…it never is.  

[HoarfrostHubb]

1 hour ago, HIPPYVALLEY said:

-4F  there have been at least 12 mornings below zero in Greenfield. 

Wow.  We didn’t get below 10F this morning.   Windy. 

[HIPPYVALLEY]

15 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Sometimes a signature storm saves a season. Just how it goes in SNE. We’ve done well here(not everybody feels the same, understandably).  And that 18+ inches solidified a good winter here…along with the consistent frigid weather.  10 more inches and we have our average snowfall.  

I'm right around my seasonal average but that will trail off quickly if the next few weeks are futile.  I have had snow in my yard since Dec 2nd so there's that.  I like the deep cold, I've just been a little lazy with the wood stove so our heating bill is higher than normal.  

[CoastalWx]

10 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

I guess VA, and NC and SC and the whole SE, and Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland, and the Midwest…the flow doesn’t bother them. It Only hurts SNE?  I don’t know really buy that. But it doesn’t really matter.   We’ll get our turn with a good coastal…but for now we watch other areas get them. 
 

It’s not just one thing…it never is.  

Yeah, I wouldn’t say the flow’s been fast, but we haven’t had the most pristine ridges because we’ve had these little short waves breaking through and that kind of screws it up for our region for whatever reason. But overall, it’s been a good Pacific.

[HIPPYVALLEY]

1 minute ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

Wow.  We didn’t get below 10F this morning.   Windy. 

Yeah, this part of the valley (Greenfield to Brattleboro) is where wind goes to die. 

[WxWatcher007]

5 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

I guess VA, and NC and SC and the whole SE, and Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland, and the Midwest…the flow doesn’t bother them. It Only hurts SNE?  I don’t know really buy that. But it doesn’t really matter.   We’ll get our turn with a good coastal…but for now we watch other areas get them. 
 

It’s not just one thing…it never is.  

They all need a different set of circumstances to produce? Except maybe Atlantic Canada?

I agree it’s not just one thing, and overall it’s balanced itself out this season. Our big dog screwed the south in snowfall. Their weekend storm screwed us. Mid-Atlantic was cashing in during part of December when we weren’t. We cashed in when they didn’t around Christmas. And the new year. 

We always want to maximize our potential and while I’m not sure if we did in the snow department in our backyards we definitely did in the east at large. Many are ahead of snow climo to date at the moment along with the coldest temperatures in recent memory. 

It’s not A+, but it’s not a D or F either. If we get skunked from here on out that’s a different story. 

[The 4 Seasons]

48 minutes ago, WxWatcher007 said:

They all need a different set of circumstances to produce? Except maybe Atlantic Canada?

I agree it’s not just one thing, and overall it’s balanced itself out this season. Our big dog screwed the south in snowfall. Their weekend storm screwed us. Mid-Atlantic was cashing in during part of December when we weren’t. We cashed in when they didn’t around Christmas. And the new year. 

We always want to maximize our potential and while I’m not sure if we did in the snow department in our backyards we definitely did in the east at large. Many are ahead of snow climo to date at the moment along with the coldest temperatures in recent memory. 

It’s not A+, but it’s not a D or F either. If we get skunked from here on out that’s a different story. 

Definitely. We're on like a A-/B+ through Feb 2nd. Even if we get skunked from here on out the lowest i could give it is like a C/C+ even with zero snow but the chances of that happening are close to nil. We've had two warning events and very solid snowpack with a lot of cold but it hasn't been phenomenal like 95-96 or 10-11. Solid first half.

1 hour ago, WinterWolf said:

I guess VA, and NC and SC and the whole SE, and Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland, and the Midwest…the flow doesn’t bother them. It Only hurts SNE?  I don’t know really buy that. But it doesn’t really matter.   We’ll get our turn with a good coastal…but for now we watch other areas get them. 
 

It’s not just one thing…it never is.  

Yeah it's Feb 2. BDR right now is around climo, BDL is about 15" below climo (for the whole winter). There's plenty of winter to go. We are at the halfway point climo-wise. Normal climo snowfall is at/around 50% through February 2nd. BDL is normally at 27.5 of 51.7 and is currently at 35.8, BDR is 15.8 of 33.6 and is currently at 33.2. BDR is doing extremely well through the date around 210% normal.

[Typhoon Tip]

Looks like a 12 hour shot of high winds and biting cold ... then the wholesale pattern across the continent has a better than random chance of a cold relaxation.  The N/stream backs off the incursions and we see 540 dm thickness back more convincingly to 40N across the conus ( not just a narrow spike but with breadth) for the first time in quite a while.

Unclear what this means for specific anomalies/dailies, but at least a moderation in temperatures should and would be consistent with the current telecon vision together with loss of N/stream direct

[40/70 Benchmark]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[40/70 Benchmark]

4 hours ago, CoastalWx said:

6z euro AI looked a little better. 
 

After that it gets dicey. We’re going to need to hope and pray that the -NAO is just enough to fight off the Conus torch coming. Especially in SNE. The Pacific is ugly.

Hope and Pray for -NAO....why? Please, let's hold onto the bitter wind chills and dearth of storms for just a few more weeks...please, oh pretty please...

I'm ready to rinse and then make one more go of it before my fantasy baseball draft. 

[weatherwiz]

The fast flow idea is something which definitely needs more research...not just in the sense of comparing charts but using the complex mathematical equations to either back up the idea or debunk it and also factor in wavelengths. It's something Ray and I had some dialog on earlier last month and I didn't have much of an answer but I've continued to think about it and have generated some hypotheses on why the fast flow would seemingly hurt us but no where else. 

An idea which comes to mind is the fast flow greatly alters both the position, strength, and orientation of the ridge/trough evolution downstream of the jet max. When it comes to "fast flow" I don't know if there is any literature which provides some methods or means to defining it, I am going to assume just a simple, "deviating from the mean" so with that the focus on my mind is the strength of the jet max. 

The second part of this, and this is where I don't have much thought or reasoning is, because of where we are located geographically with respect to "normal" trough/ridge axes and evolution...the faster flow just screws us. Let's look at it in this sense: During the summer, what is one reason why it is extremely difficult (or what seems impossible) to get the extreme heat into our region (I'm talking about widespread >100°F)? The position and orientation of how the southern ridge evolves...it either does so to pump the heat into the West, central states, midwestern states, or mid-Atlantic. Now there are other factors such as airmass modification due to convection, fronts, etc. 

Back to the cold season, but with the faster flow you are either increasing the likelihood for cyclogenesis and rapid LP strengthening well west of the Appalachians (hence west of us getting hit) or a bit farther off the mid-Atlantic coast or even southeast coast (hence south of us getting hit) but the faster flow disrupts storms potential from coming up the coast. 

I think this could be similar to that of tornado alley. There has been alot of discussion of whether tornado alley has "shifted" from what it was once perceived. But historically tornado data shows a concentrated area of tornadoes within the Great Plains ("original Tornado Alley") and a secondary concentrated area within the Mississippi Valley area (with a gap between the two). This gap could be explained by shifts within the trough axis based on the flow so either you get periods (years) where tornado activity is concentrated within the Great Plains or where it is concentrated several hundred miles south and east...so the area in between these two has a lower concentration of activity just because of where they happened to reside to the location of the trough axis. 

This could be a incredibly cool and fun study for someone to heavily divulge into but would requite using primitive equations to explain the flow, changes in the flow, and downstream implications. 

[HIPPYVALLEY]

5 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Groundhog says six more weeks of this and then 10 weeks of April!    

[40/70 Benchmark]

3 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

The fast flow idea is something which definitely needs more research...not just in the sense of comparing charts but using the complex mathematical equations to either back up the idea or debunk it and also factor in wavelengths. It's something Ray and I had some dialog on earlier last month and I didn't have much of an answer but I've continued to think about it and have generated some hypotheses on why the fast flow would seemingly hurt us but no where else. 

An idea which comes to mind is the fast flow greatly alters both the position, strength, and orientation of the ridge/trough evolution downstream of the jet max. When it comes to "fast flow" I don't know if there is any literature which provides some methods or means to defining it, I am going to assume just a simple, "deviating from the mean" so with that the focus on my mind is the strength of the jet max. 

The second part of this, and this is where I don't have much thought or reasoning is, because of where we are located geographically with respect to "normal" trough/ridge axes and evolution...the faster flow just screws us. Let's look at it in this sense: During the summer, what is one reason why it is extremely difficult (or what seems impossible) to get the extreme heat into our region (I'm talking about widespread >100°F)? The position and orientation of how the southern ridge evolves...it either does so to pump the heat into the West, central states, midwestern states, or mid-Atlantic. Now there are other factors such as airmass modification due to convection, fronts, etc. 

Back to the cold season, but with the faster flow you are either increasing the likelihood for cyclogenesis and rapid LP strengthening well west of the Appalachians (hence west of us getting hit) or a bit farther off the mid-Atlantic coast or even southeast coast (hence south of us getting hit) but the faster flow disrupts storms potential from coming up the coast. 

I think this could be similar to that of tornado alley. There has been alot of discussion of whether tornado alley has "shifted" from what it was once perceived. But historically tornado data shows a concentrated area of tornadoes within the Great Plains ("original Tornado Alley") and a secondary concentrated area within the Mississippi Valley area (with a gap between the two). This gap could be explained by shifts within the trough axis based on the flow so either you get periods (years) where tornado activity is concentrated within the Great Plains or where it is concentrated several hundred miles south and east...so the area in between these two has a lower concentration of activity just because of where they happened to reside to the location of the trough axis. 

This could be a incredibly cool and fun study for someone to heavily divulge into but would requite using primitive equations to explain the flow, changes in the flow, and downstream implications. 

If you aren't in patterns conducive to east coast amplification, you either get cutters, or suppressed systems in really cold patterns that can't turn up the coast...sound familiar to the past several seasons?

[weatherwiz]

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

If you aren't in patters conducive to east coast amplification, you ejther get cutters, or suppressed systems in really cold patterns that can't turn up the coast...sound familiar to the past several seasons?

Can't sum it up any better than this really. 

When the pattern is not right or the pattern doesn't evolve in a favorable fashion based on historical precedence, it's incredibly difficult to get things to work out.

[CoastalWx]

7 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Hope and Pray for -NAO....why? Please, let's hold onto the bitter wind chills and dearth of storms for just a few more weeks...please, oh pretty please...

I'm ready to rinse and make then make one more go of it before the draft. 

That won’t be possible with the airmass. You’ll need the -NAO unless you want rain.

[40/70 Benchmark]

15 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

That won’t be possible with the airmass. You’ll need the -NAO unless you want rain.

My point is there is nothing on the imminent horizon worth salvaging. 

[Typhoon Tip]

43 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

The fast flow idea is something which definitely needs more research...not just in the sense of comparing charts but using the complex mathematical equations to either back up the idea or debunk it and also factor in wavelengths. It's something Ray and I had some dialog on earlier last month and I didn't have much of an answer but I've continued to think about it and have generated some hypotheses on why the fast flow would seemingly hurt us but no where else. 

An idea which comes to mind is the fast flow greatly alters both the position, strength, and orientation of the ridge/trough evolution downstream of the jet max. When it comes to "fast flow" I don't know if there is any literature which provides some methods or means to defining it, I am going to assume just a simple, "deviating from the mean" so with that the focus on my mind is the strength of the jet max. 

The second part of this, and this is where I don't have much thought or reasoning is, because of where we are located geographically with respect to "normal" trough/ridge axes and evolution...the faster flow just screws us. Let's look at it in this sense: During the summer, what is one reason why it is extremely difficult (or what seems impossible) to get the extreme heat into our region (I'm talking about widespread >100°F)? The position and orientation of how the southern ridge evolves...it either does so to pump the heat into the West, central states, midwestern states, or mid-Atlantic. Now there are other factors such as airmass modification due to convection, fronts, etc. 

Back to the cold season, but with the faster flow you are either increasing the likelihood for cyclogenesis and rapid LP strengthening well west of the Appalachians (hence west of us getting hit) or a bit farther off the mid-Atlantic coast or even southeast coast (hence south of us getting hit) but the faster flow disrupts storms potential from coming up the coast. 

I think this could be similar to that of tornado alley. There has been alot of discussion of whether tornado alley has "shifted" from what it was once perceived. But historically tornado data shows a concentrated area of tornadoes within the Great Plains ("original Tornado Alley") and a secondary concentrated area within the Mississippi Valley area (with a gap between the two). This gap could be explained by shifts within the trough axis based on the flow so either you get periods (years) where tornado activity is concentrated within the Great Plains or where it is concentrated several hundred miles south and east...so the area in between these two has a lower concentration of activity just because of where they happened to reside to the location of the trough axis. 

This could be a incredibly cool and fun study for someone to heavily divulge into but would requite using primitive equations to explain the flow, changes in the flow, and downstream implications. 

The quickening flow is well past documentation and researched/papered ... I've supplied links over the years. 

One can go to Phys.org or where ever access point they use and bother looking for themselves at this point.

Plus, why do we think all those air-land speed flight records have been set in recent decades re west-->east?

It's not a question of whether the flow is fast or not..  Fiddling with Navier-Stokes, agreed - but the basic wave form of the Navier Stokes equations ( which are processed in the physical make up in the model), has the U component variable - which is the static velocity of fluid medium within which the wave propagation takes place. Increasing the value is going to do something to the wave spacing.

 

[WinterWolf]

Well whatever that all means…which is certainly above my pay grade. I guess it only affects the northeast coast of the U.S. then.  

[dendrite]

45 minutes ago, HIPPYVALLEY said:

Groundhog says six more weeks of this and then 10 weeks of April!    

After my 35th straight day of 45° and drizzle in May

[weatherwiz]

3 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

The quickening flow is well past documentation and researched/papered ... I've supplied links over the years. 

One can go to Phys.org or where ever access point they use and bother looking for themselves at this point.

Plus, why do we think all those air-land speed flight records have been set in recent decades re west-->east?

It's not a question of whether the flow is fast or not..  Fiddling with Navier-Stokes, agreed - but the basic wave form of the Navier Stokes equations ( which are processed in the physical make up in the model), has the U component variable - which is the static velocity of fluid medium within which the wave propagation takes place. Increasing the value is going to do something to the wave spacing.

 

Yeah I'll check this out more, Phys.org is pretty great. 

And thanks for the last paragraph, that is precisely what I was trying to illustrate but could not put into coherent wording. I think having a sound fundamental background in this understanding can go along way in medium range forecasting. If there is one thing I would really love to study further and understand it's wave spacing and factors which influence wave spacing...and then how forecast models handle wave spacing.

[weatherwiz]

2 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Well whatever that all means…which is certainly above my pay grade. I guess it only affects the northeast coast of the U.S. then.  

Well technically it doesn't only affect the northeast coast of the U.S. it has an effect everywhere but the effects (or the results) or just the by product. For us a byproduct is just shitty luck, for areas to our west and south the byproduct is increased potential. 

[powderfreak]

5 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Well whatever that all means…which is certainly above my pay grade. I guess it only affects the northeast coast of the U.S. then.  

You’re thinking about it too binary though.  It affects everywhere.  

But you keep saying “if location X gets a snowstorm, then it must not be happening there.”  And if someone says it’s happening here, they mean zero snow.

Maybe for one region it decreases the chances by 10%… for another area they have already low chances of snow so it decreases chances by a percentage point or two.  But there’s always a percentage chance the storms happen.  It’s like a sliding scale and changing the probabilities.

It’s not a binary yes or no.

[WinterWolf]

6 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

Well technically it doesn't only affect the northeast coast of the U.S. it has an effect everywhere but the effects (or the results) or just the by product. For us a byproduct is just shitty luck, for areas to our west and south the byproduct is increased potential. 

I guess?  A couple years from now that will change too. So we just hang tight for the time being.  

[WinterWolf]

Just now, powderfreak said:

You’re thinking about it too binary though.  It affects everywhere.  

But you keep saying “if location X gets a snowstorm, then it must not be happening there.”  And if someone says it’s happening here, they mean zero snow.

Maybe for one region it decreases the chances by 10%… for another area they have already low chances of snow so it decreases chances by a percentage point or two.  But there’s always a percentage chance the storms happen.  It’s like a sliding scale and changing the probabilities.

It’s not a binary yes or no.

Obviously…nothing in MET science ever is. But the bigger point is this is just another one of the many theories that have their time in the sun, and then we realize there’s so much more to it.  

[weatherwiz]

1 minute ago, WinterWolf said:

I guess?  A couple years from now that will change too. So we just hang tight for the time being.  

It will certainly change. 

I really wish we could get a good 2-3 year period of ENSO neutral conditions. I think that would go along way of stabilizing things for a bit