psuhoffman
-
Posts
26,411 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by psuhoffman
-
I've seen the correlation chart and I know this is correct...but I've also seen some research suggesting the effect of one phase is linked to the passage of the MJO through a prior phase and what chain reaction that sets off. For instance Phase 5/6/7 aren't cold, but I've seem some imply that forcing in those phases can set off a course of events that leads to high latitude ridging a week or two later...and that might be part of why 8/1 are cold not just because forcing in 8/1 is good. So would 8/1 necessarily have the same impact if we get there without any passage through 6/7? Does it even matter in a nino where the background base state should be ok absent any stronger MJO signal? All good questions imo. ETA: is it a coincidence that the NAO took a turn for the worse on the guidance about when the MJO wave started to die off instead of traversing 7 on that same guidance?
-
You’re right. I was just explaining my processes not taking a shot at you. Sorry if it came off that way.
-
See my last post above
-
Yes, you can’t get cross polar flow when a raging pac jet is blasting across North America. ETA: and you can’t even generate home grown domestic cold when pac maritime air is being blasted across by a record pac jet. It’s all related. Add in that it’s just simply warmer overall and this is a bad combo What isn’t totally known is how much of the pac issue is a temporary cycle and how much is permanent due to warming. I think it’s a bit of both. We are in a hostile cyclical pdo regime. But the expansion of the pacific circulation and the western pac warm pool have both been linked to warming and both are making the PDO program a lot worse.
-
No because the weather doesn’t care how we feel about it! I approach this purely scientifically. I want it to snow. I love snow. I’ll be disappointed if this year fails. Even more so because I’ll bust and I put work into my forecasts. But the weather cares not about any of that and when you look to confirm what you want it leads to bad analysis and bad results. That is true of any scientific study or process. But we’ve been on here together long enough for people to know I love snow. I’m not some warminista troll who gets off on dashing the hopes and dreams of snow weenies. When it’s actually snowy I weenie out with the rest of you! My analysis has been so bad for snow lately simply because….the reality has been mostly utter crap for snow going on 7 years now. But that’s not my preference or my fault.
-
They aren’t downwind of the raging pacific jet so…. Just pointing out it’s not a random fluke this keeps happening. It’s all related.
-
Yea I agree with this. If we get to New Years and the better looks aren’t inside 2 weeks we’re in big trouble. For now we wait.
-
Correct. Which is why I’m not overly concerned with these extended products. This isn’t me making one of those “we’re F’d it’s over” posts. This is purely an observation of trends on guidance.
-
These are all very good points. But going from a super majority consensus to a split camp scenario which seems to be what you’re implying, is still a move in the wrong direction. And no they aren’t super reliable. Frankly they suck at those ranges. But we were noting when they looked great. I’m simply noting when they don’t. Is it some super awful sign no, but it’s also not a good thing to see guidance move the wrong direction. I’m frankly a little surprised by the pushback the last two times I simply made an objective observation/analysis of what the guidance showed. I didn’t make any predictions at all. Actually I’m in record with above normal snow and said I’m sticking to that for now. No one pushed back a couple weeks ago when I observed how the same exact guidance I’m pointing to now looked great. No one had arguments why it didn’t look great or why it wasn’t with looking at. It was just a bunch of likes. Now I do the exact same thing, the only difference is the guidance isn’t so awesome and it’s a bunch of “but this that ie the other” arguments.
-
I think it’s sooner than that. I looked at all those “late flipping snowy Nino years” and in all of them the inception of what happened later was very evident by early January. In some cases the snow might have taken longer, often because it took weeks for a colder profile to establish once the pattern flipped…but if we get to New Years and guidance shows the nao is still positive and the pac is torching the continent history says it’s game over for our chances of a good winter. At that point we have to shift to looking to get lucky with 1 or 2 storms like 1995 or maybe if we get really lucky 1983.
-
They aren’t THAT different. The problem is snow is an anomaly here. Absent just getting lucky it usually takes a good look not just a blah one. So seeing a good look degrade to just ok could be the difference between snow and no.
-
The latest gefs never flips the nao negative. The latest eps is slightly better by mid January but it’s not nearly as pronounced as just a few days ago. I’m not making any prediction but I’m also not seeing what you’re seeing.
-
You could even argue the pac side looks slightly better…the problem is the flip to a -nao keeps getting delayed.
-
A couple days ago I pointed out how the long range guidance had lost the really good look for the last week of December. Since then the extended long range guidance took a significant step in the wrong direction for the first week of January too. This is just an observation. Right or wrong sticking our head in the sand about it won’t change anything. I’m still hopeful but it seems it’s as much the Atlantic side that’s the issue…guidance is shifting to a less favorable nao look which requires an even better pacific. 2003 for example the nao wasn’t great but the pacific was perfect so it didn’t matter. The really good looks on long range guidance a week ago were a product of a decent pacific coupled with a great Atlantic look. The problem is both those equations keep shifting the wrong way as we get closer. No prediction here pure observation. I need another week to ingest this and decide if I think it’s just a slower progression or an actual seasonal problem. Both gefs and eps for early January. 72 hours ago Latest runs
-
Reality is what it is. It’s been getting warmer. We don’t have to debate why or if it’s our fault since those issues have become politicized. But it’s warmer. That’s just a fact. It’s not impossible for us to be cold. But it’s harder since at any given moment much less of Earth is cold than it used to be. So the probabilities continue to stack more and more against us. Why is that controversial? Thermometers seem like a pretty basic concept to me.
-
Maybe this is just semantics. I dunno. A jet extension is fine. A record fast jet extension is too much of a good thing and shifts the whole pattern east which floods us with maritime pac air and doesn’t allow for a northerly flow until too far east to mix enough continental polar air into the equation. The issue is some (who might not really know the nuances of what they speak) are just saying “the jet extension” without the necessary context. What we want is the pac jet to chill just a bit. That’s all.
-
The actual main vortex is placed fine, the problem is the pac jet on roids is blasting off pieces of it and crashing them into the pacific NW. That’s different from more cutoff STJ systems coming into southern CA. Once (if) the pac jet relaxes just a wee bit (it’s a technical term) the whole pattern would fix itself relatively quick imo. It might take a week to get cold air (or colder I don’t expect arctic air) established.
-
Thanks. I’m NE of Frederick. I’m on a ridge just north of Manchester in Carroll County. I ended up with 3.8 to be exact.
-
If you loop the last 48 hours on the gefs and geps you can see positive progress happening.
-
If the pac jet relaxes just a bit it would solve pretty much all the problems. Those other imperfections wouldn’t matter much if you retrograde everything out west 5-10 degrees.
-
I don’t think the end of the EPS was that bad. I thought it took a step finally. I’ll be interested in what the weeklies show as its extension today, just for fun lol. ideally we want a -nao and to get that pac trough to retro a bit to get that ridge (x) back closer to an axis along Idaho. But this is closer. The highest heights are no longer right on top of us. Yea there is no arctic air but that’s par for a Nino. Look at the flow. The Canada ridge is pulling back enough to get a flow we can work with. I could see something working within that framework. It’s not as bad as the last few runs imo.
-
We had a perfect track rainstorm in Jan 2016 a couple weeks before…ya know. We also had a perfect track rainstorm in early March 2018 then a couple weeks later…so it’s not the worst thing. It’s more indicative of the storm track with the stj we just need a period that’s cold enough. Are you ready for my detailed deeply analytical thorough answer…. YES
-
I let the kids play outside this morning since school was delayed. Snow cover still holding strong.
-
This is good analysis to do. In the end a compromise seems to have been best. The 10-1 were a bit high even here. Some runs were close but others had me at 5+. But as I expected the depth maps were low for places that did get banding. If it snows hard marginal air/ground temps can be overcome. We’ve seen this time and again. Kuchera I think was the closest of the pre made clown maps. Overall the euro did really well with this one imo.
-
Low sun angle but also…the clouds we get up here from a NW flow off the Great Lakes helps a lot. Those clouds tend to dissipate just SE of us where the elevation drops and it makes a big difference.
