January Storm Potentials

[Rainshadow]

There is a growing concern for a potential major winter storm Jan 14-17th. Here are a few things:

1. Another low-frequency MJO pulse through the E PAC-Atlantic sector

2. Possibility of a retrograding Greenland Block

3. Active pattern continues with a parade of storminess

4. Cold air should be very much available

Assuming that everything above comes to fruition, the pattern would become very favorable again for a coastal storm in the time period listed above. However, if the pattern takes on the same characteristics as what just occurred for Dec 25-27, this storm in January may end up more out to sea. With everything being equal, the waves may be a little bit longer this go-around than they were for this past storm. This may keep more people out of the game, perhaps targeting New England more than anyone else. Also, if the STJ s/w fails to materialize just by sheer coincidence/bad timing, that would take the southern states out of the game, too.

So get ready folks...Jan 5 through 15 looks -NAO dominated.

The WOTY award has to go to the -NAO, its unprecedented resiliency is becoming legendary.

[uncle W]

A major storm in mid January would be similar to what happened in 1909-10...

1909-10 season had major storms on the 12/25-26 and 1/14-15...It looks like it was a La Nina year...it looks like that year had a neg nao in Dec. but positive the rest of the way... This year's blocking might last longer...Hopefully until May...

[okie333]

A major storm in mid January would be similar to what happened in 1909-10...

1909-10 season had major storms on the 12/25-26 and 1/14-15...It looks like it was a La Nina year...it looks like that year had a neg nao in Dec. but positive the rest of the way... This year's blocking might last longer...Hopefully until May...

Hopefully until May... 2100 that is!

[mdsnowlover]

A major storm in mid January would be similar to what happened in 1909-10...

1909-10 season had major storms on the 12/25-26 and 1/14-15...It looks like it was a La Nina year...it looks like that year had a neg nao in Dec. but positive the rest of the way... This year's blocking might last longer...Hopefully until May...

did the storm in 1909-10 hit the same areas or different??

[IsentropicLift]

did the storm in 1909-10 hit the same areas or different??

Great Photos of NYC and Cape Cod from Jan 14-15th 1910.

http://wintercenter.homestead.com/photo1910.html

[uncle W]

did the storm in 1909-10 hit the same areas or different??

Philadelphia got 21" on 12/25-26/1909 and 7.6" 1/14-15/1910...NYC 8.0" 12/25-26 and 10.0" 1/14-15...

[HM]

The WOTY award has to go to the -NAO, its unprecedented resiliency is becoming legendary.

You're not kidding. It's times like this that make me happy to be a meteorologist. I remember a particular period of time where it was hard to get 6" of snow.

[HM]

A major storm in mid January would be similar to what happened in 1909-10...

1909-10 season had major storms on the 12/25-26 and 1/14-15...It looks like it was a La Nina year...it looks like that year had a neg nao in Dec. but positive the rest of the way... This year's blocking might last longer...Hopefully until May...

Cool find uncle. As far as solar goes, it looks like this year was on the descending stage. The min wasn't until August 1913. I remember a few summers ago, 1912 became an awesome analog for the solar levels and volcanism. It nailed the cold Midwest.

[HM]

Hopefully until May... 2100 that is!

Come on man. You know you miss the warmth of summer and the faint rumble of thunder in the distance of an approaching severe t-storm.

[okie333]

Come on man. You know you miss the warmth of summer and the faint rumble of thunder in the distance of an approaching severe t-storm.

I did not say "stop the seasonal cycles", I said "keep the AO hyper-negative".

[HM]

I did not say "stop the seasonal cycles", I said "keep the AO hyper-negative".

Alright brother, I'll let it slide this time.

By the way, I don't know if you caught it in Isotherm's thread but great call on the record breaking AO/NAO. I'm curious, had you gone strong La Niña, would you have still went record breaking -NAO/AO?

[nzucker]

Come on man. You know you miss the warmth of summer and the faint rumble of thunder in the distance of an approaching severe t-storm.

Ugh, HM, let's not talk about the misery of summer now. There will be a time, my friend.

Alright brother, I'll let it slide this time.

By the way, I don't know if you caught it in Isotherm's thread but great call on the record breaking AO/NAO. I'm curious, had you gone strong La Niña, would you have still went record breaking -NAO/AO?

You must be glad that you didn't take my bet the NAO would average negative this winter. I was thinking slightly negative, though, not this incredible blocking.

[HM]

Ugh, HM, let's not talk about the misery of summer now. There will be a time, my friend.

You must be glad that you didn't take my bet the NAO would average negative this winter. I was thinking slightly negative, though, not this incredible blocking.

Lesson one in forecasting...never be certain enough that you think you are always right. That's why i would never take a bet. My incorrect assumption was that the solar levels would come back to the winter before the solar min winter, when we also had a basin wide La Niña. As amazing as that is, we have yet to reach those levels; therefore, this winter's NAO average will be negative.

[Ginx snewx]

Ugh, HM, let's not talk about the misery of summer now. There will be a time, my friend.

You must be glad that you didn't take my bet the NAO would average negative this winter. I was thinking slightly negative, though, not this incredible blocking.

Nate,

There was a time this fall I tried to lead you on your own to figure out that Nina would not be the end all, that the Pacific would not rule the world, that there was a greater power. I purposely did not reveal to you why. I told you then there was a higher power. I wanted you to figure it out, you have and you are now that much more educated. All hail the power and weakness of the AO , the glory of the Sun. The gates of learning the Suns influence on NAO have been opened, time for the young Turks to add to our knowledge.

[nzucker]

Nate,

There was a time this fall I tried to lead you on your own to figure out that Nina would not be the end all, that the Pacific would not rule the world, that there was a greater power. I purposely did not reveal to you why. I told you then there was a higher power. I wanted you to figure it out, you have and you are now that much more educated. All hail the power and weakness of the AO , the glory of the Sun. The gates of learning the Suns influence on NAO have been opened, time for the young Turks to add to our knowledge.

I mean the solar factor is the main reason I didn't call for a +NAO given the strength of the Niña; I figured we'd keep some blocking, at least early in the winter. I have to say I'm pretty impressed with the magnitude of the AO/NAO block, which are basically running the winter pattern in the USA and Europe so far.

[Ginx snewx]

I mean the solar factor is the main reason I didn't call for a +NAO given the strength of the Niña; I figured we'd keep some blocking, at least early in the winter. I have to say I'm pretty impressed with the magnitude of the AO/NAO block, which are basically running the winter pattern in the USA and Europe so far.

Ah Grasshopper you speak with half a cup of tea, soon when you are older your cup runneth over.

Remember there are no absolutes but there were no spots.

[HM]

Meh...

The sun is a factor....like the many others that control NAO variability.

Both the 98-99 and the 09-10 El Niño events were initiated by the sun and they both also came at a time when the solar wind was very low (the solar wind minimum happens after the sunspot minimum, um hello). You will argue well, the 1998-99 event was stronger/warmer/east-based etc. and that's why the results were different (among many reasons). Well that's just it isn't it. The sun can be trumped and has in the past. What about 1996-97? I wouldn't call it a positive NAO winter but it certainly was nothing like 09-10 and 10-11, so far, even with a neutral ENSO signal and above normal October Eurasian snow cover.

The point I'm making is: there is a myriad of factors. I just wanted to say this before the sun becomes the next "MJO" around here.

By the way...speaking of 96-97.... it had a huge -NAO in December, then a slightly negative Jan and then a very positive Feb and March. The DJFM was positive but DJF was slightly negative which is what many went with around here. Should be interesting if 10-11 follows that behavior but at a different scale (obviously much more negative).

[VAwxman]

Meh...

The sun is a factor....like the many others that control NAO variability.

Both the 98-99 and the 09-10 El Niño events were initiated by the sun and they both also came at a time when the solar wind was very low (the solar wind minimum happens after the sunspot minimum, um hello). You will argue well, the 1998-99 event was stronger/warmer/east-based etc. and that's why the results were different (among many reasons). Well that's just it isn't it. The sun can be trumped and has in the past. What about 1996-97? I wouldn't call it a positive NAO winter but it certainly was nothing like 09-10 and 10-11, so far, even with a neutral ENSO signal and above normal October Eurasian snow cover.

The point I'm making is: there is a myriad of factors. I just wanted to say this before the sun becomes the next "MJO" around here.

By the way...speaking of 96-97.... it had a huge -NAO in December, then a slightly negative Jan and then a very positive Feb and March. The DJFM was positive but DJF was slightly negative which is what many went with around here. Should be interesting if 10-11 follows that behavior but at a different scale (obviously much more negative).

Thanks for posting this.

Folks (including many mets) have a habit of latching on to one thing (be it MJO, QBO, AAM, or whatever) as if it is THE key to forecasting, only to figure out that they didn't really know how to use it properly and then get burned later, causing them to latch on to something else. The real key is finding out how all of these factors are connected and play on each other. It's not nearly as simple as "low solar = blocking", even though this winter will lead many to go that route (and yes it is a big factor, to be sure).

[Jebman]

Great Photos of NYC and Cape Cod from Jan 14-15th 1910.

http://wintercenter..../photo1910.html

Forget the -NAO - Don Sutherland and his I-N-C-R-E-D-I-B-L-E winter weather website chock-full of shweet snow pics for all-time!!!! FTW!!!

[pojrzsho]

i'm sorry, but could someone bottom line this for this novice. It seems like you are saying mecause of blocking, we should be colder and possibly stormier, not just in this winter, but for winters to come? Please help

[Ginx snewx]

Thanks for posting this.

Folks (including many mets) have a habit of latching on to one thing (be it MJO, QBO, AAM, or whatever) as if it is THE key to forecasting, only to figure out that they didn't really know how to use it properly and then get burned later, causing them to latch on to something else. The real key is finding out how all of these factors are connected and play on each other. It's not nearly as simple as "low solar = blocking", even though this winter will lead many to go that route (and yes it is a big factor, to be sure).

Landscheidt proved very convincingly that the correlation with NAO state was very strong to solar output. Of course there are other major forcers but when an overwhelming solar min state persists you have to expect a neg NAO will persist. It has and those Mets who thought it was a minor interruption with their long rangers are about to get toasted. To me the data was straight forward. Perhaps too many variables are detrimental to LR forecasts. For me in NE it's all about NA0

[VAwxman]

Landscheidt proved very convincingly that the correlation with NAO state was very strong to solar output. Of course there are other major forcers but when an overwhelming solar min state persists you have to expect a neg NAO will persist. It has and those Mets who thought it was a minor interruption with their long rangers are about to get toasted. To me the data was straight forward. Perhaps too many variables are detrimental to LR forecasts. For me in NE it's all about NA0

I don't know any long ranger who thought we were not headed for longer term -NAO state. Any who thought this probably should find something else to do, as that has been very clear with or without solar. There is much, much more to LR forecasting though than "low solar = blocking". Where is the blocking located? How will other factors modulate the blocking? Will these other factors be able to overpower the solar signal? Many, many questions that solar alone cannot and will never be able to explain. There is no way around it, but go ahead and think otherwise if you are inclined to do so.

[Ji]

Gfs looked primed at 192 then truncation shut it down

[HM]

Gfs looked primed at 192 then truncation shut it down

If that 50-50 doesn't get out of the way...it will go south of us man. Models seem to both agree this round of -NAO breaks down a little quicker than the last round. We'll see if they are rushing it or not...

[nzucker]

Meh...

The sun is a factor....like the many others that control NAO variability.

Both the 98-99 and the 09-10 El Niño events were initiated by the sun and they both also came at a time when the solar wind was very low (the solar wind minimum happens after the sunspot minimum, um hello). You will argue well, the 1998-99 event was stronger/warmer/east-based etc. and that's why the results were different (among many reasons). Well that's just it isn't it. The sun can be trumped and has in the past. What about 1996-97? I wouldn't call it a positive NAO winter but it certainly was nothing like 09-10 and 10-11, so far, even with a neutral ENSO signal and above normal October Eurasian snow cover.

The point I'm making is: there is a myriad of factors. I just wanted to say this before the sun becomes the next "MJO" around here.

By the way...speaking of 96-97.... it had a huge -NAO in December, then a slightly negative Jan and then a very positive Feb and March. The DJFM was positive but DJF was slightly negative which is what many went with around here. Should be interesting if 10-11 follows that behavior but at a different scale (obviously much more negative).

Are you talking about 97-98 along with 2010? 98-99 was a moderate La Niña, I thought.

But the extreme solar minimum just began in 2008 (long periods with no spots) so can we even compare to 96-97?

Also, do you think some other forcing factor originally pushes the NAO negative and then it gets stuck, so to speak, in extreme solar minimums? Like the Maunder which had so many -NAO years and dealt such severe winters to Europe? Was that factor the strong, west based El Niño? Or the -QBO that we started in 2007?

[nzucker]

If that 50-50 doesn't get out of the way...it will go south of us man. Models seem to both agree this round of -NAO breaks down a little quicker than the last round. We'll see if they are rushing it or not...

This is a pretty nice map...but we need that 50/50 to scoot north a bit...definitely not far from a MECS/HECS 500mb map:

[HM]

Are you talking about 97-98 along with 2010? 98-99 was a moderate La Niña, I thought.

But the extreme solar minimum just began in 2008 (long periods with no spots) so can we even compare to 96-97?

Also, do you think some other forcing factor originally pushes the NAO negative and then it gets stuck, so to speak, in extreme solar minimums? Like the Maunder which had so many -NAO years and dealt such severe winters to Europe? Was that factor the strong, west based El Niño? Or the -QBO that we started in 2007?

Woops. Yeah you're right. I was talking about 97-98. Just making the point that occasionally the terrestrial factors trump the solar factor. The QBO/solar factors were great in 97-98. Had we just gone through 09-10 and 10-11, would you have gone very negative then too knowing the solar wind minimum was that year?

I think the NAO is a cool phenomenon in where, once you get it going...it is hard to stop in a winter. Once I gather my thoughts, I plan to make a post about everything and we'll continue this stuff there. But yeah, I think that the right combination came together this autumn. And once you get that equatorward wave break action going, it just doesn't stop.

[nzucker]

I don't know any long ranger who thought we were not headed for longer term -NAO state.

Yes, but most outlooks on here called for a slightly negative (Isotherm) to slightly positive (HM) NAO...this was a very reasonable and logical call for a strong La Niña, but the people who went extreme with the AO/NAO blocking overwhelming the Pacific's winter pattern (Okie) are winning. I don't think most long-rangers thought a -1.7C Niña would produce a record-breaking -NAO.

[nzucker]

Woops. Yeah you're right. I was talking about 97-98. Just making the point that occasionally the terrestrial factors trump the solar factor. The QBO/solar factors were great in 97-98. Had we just gone through 09-10 and 10-11, would you have gone very negative then too knowing the solar wind minimum was that year?

I also feel as if the mega-strong Niño is the best way to alter what looks like a colder pattern because of -AO/-NAO. Didn't we even have a -AO in 97-98, but most of the cold ended up in Siberia since the tropical Pacific forcing and resultant EPO pattern was so terrible? I seem to remember that 97-98 and 09-10 both had a really strong PV over Siberia, with some of the only below avg temperature anomalies on the globe in that region (esp. in the case of 97-98).

We also didn't have such a strong solar minimum in 1998...

[Analog96]

Its gonna suck starting in like 2030 when we go back into the +NAO state again, of course its hard to imagine its going to be as awful as the 1980-2000 +NAO state was given the previous +ERA before the 60s while less snowy was not that bad.

How can anyone really know what state the NAO is going to be in 2030? OTOH, IF we have a mostly -NAO for 20 more years, we're in for some good times.