frontranger8 Posted 25 minutes ago Share Posted 25 minutes ago 23 hours ago, snowman19 said: One thing is for sure. These ridiculous, bombastic claims on twitter today that 2009-10 is the best “analog” for this winter are going to go down in flames. That is quite possibly the worst analog in the entire history of mankind. It’s actually laughable and embarrassing that anyone would think that’s a perfect match for this year. Fantasy, cope, deep denial, fake news, delusion and wishcasting at its finest The great thing about analogs is that even the most "perfect" match does not mean the winter will be even close to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowman19 Posted 13 minutes ago Share Posted 13 minutes ago This is just extraordinary at this point….the onslaught of WWBs and DWKWs is progged to continue into November. Here comes another one. It’s been relentless since the end of March. This is certain to result in more surface and subsurface warming……the strongest El Niño in history is all but a guarantee…. We have left 1997 in the dust: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frontranger8 Posted 5 minutes ago Share Posted 5 minutes ago 19 minutes ago, Winter Wizard said: Down the line, that seems like a discouraging sign for December. After initial weakening, the PV rapidly rebuilds and that is another piece of evidence pointing toward a very warm December. which is a strong signal in historic analogs. Recall that last year, the disruption occurred in late November and that contributed to a cold start in December with an Arctic spell mid-month. The end of December into early January torched for the majority of the CONUS right as the PV rebuilt. I suspect this time, if it even couples to the troposphere, it would only really benefit Europe with cold/snow based on the large scale pattern. Maybe it implies potential for disruptions or splitting later in the season, but historically that is less likely with this ENSO/QBO combo. Either way, I think there are bad actors who are clinging onto this as confirmation bias of cold/snow in order to sell subscriptions or get social media views. I thought that the earlier in the season SSW's happen, the longer they take to propagate to the troposphere? 30-45 days is what I believe I read for November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaWx Posted 5 minutes ago Share Posted 5 minutes ago 25 minutes ago, Winter Wizard said: Down the line, that seems like a discouraging sign for December. After initial weakening, the PV rapidly rebuilds and that is another piece of evidence pointing toward a very warm December. which is a strong signal in historic analogs. Recall that last year, the disruption occurred in late November and that contributed to a cold start in December with an Arctic spell mid-month. The end of December into early January torched for the majority of the CONUS right as the PV rebuilt. I suspect this time, if it even couples to the troposphere, it would only really benefit Europe with cold/snow based on the large scale pattern. Maybe it implies potential for disruptions or splitting later in the season, but historically that is less likely with this ENSO/QBO combo. Either way, I think there are bad actors who are clinging onto this as confirmation bias of cold/snow in order to sell subscriptions or get social media views. Thanks. I don’t doubt the bad actors! For me this is introducing more variability for Dec than I had assumed previously. Based on @snowman19posts on +QBO/ENSO analogs as well as my own research to confirm Adam’s mild E US forecast, I had been thinking mild Dec except possibly NN SE, especially deep SE. But with this historically very early SSW coming, I feel that there’s increases uncertainty for Dec. Per @Stormchaserchuck1the avg lag from an SSW to first getting well down into the troposphere early in the season is 35-40 days if I recall correctly. This would mean ~Dec 9-14 for it to first reach well down. And then it would last for a period of time (most likely 2-3 weeks minimum per history). Thus, this increases the possibility of a cold overall E US Dec, especially mid to late month and especially SE US, vs my prior thinking from very low to a nontrivial chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowman19 Posted 2 minutes ago Share Posted 2 minutes ago This ++PMM setting more records…. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted just now Share Posted just now 26 minutes ago, EasternLI said: Yes they do have a selection. Not everything but some. Looking for something in particular? i'm trying to figure out if i need to establish alternate/ancillary sources. This measure, in the off chance that greed and/or corruption and/or the unstoppable epidemic of growing standardizing idiocy, or some combination of all these..., at last succeed in hiding the telecon from general access. It is getting harder and harder to find what should be free. As an aside, humanity really needs a comet named Humility to set it back to something like a realization of how bad their shit stinks and humility. LOL... but this is a lot to look for, I know. hahaha Seriously, ... I may have to pick a source and I'd like it to be good. So right now the CPC - the only remaining easy access site - indicates a descending AO modality, ending in a dish-pan negative mode ... -.75 or -1. However, the CPC assesses the AO based upon the geopotential height anomaly. This can be misleading at times... because the specific curvature geometry of the isohypses around the stereographic projection of the hemisphere are not always consistent with actual high latitude blocking we'd normally associate with the -AO state. Case in point, last night's extended GEFs rendition around the hemisphere. There is a some semblance, though very modest, of a block in the NE EPO domain N of Alaska there, but that's hardly substantive. This is more sort suggestive that the AOs negative coming purely from numerical positive N and negative S, but not being representative very well in the orientation of the height gradient/geometry, it is kind of fake - so to speak. Other sources/ corroboration might be useful here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now