Mr Torchey Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 This year, we needed the -nao, without it as ray said it would have been hell, last feb and march with a -nao was horrific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 None of the models really show a sustained -NAO/-AO, however. That's my clue the winter is basically over. No they don't, but it doesn't mean nearly as much as it does during Dec-Feb. I'm not bent out of shape if the NAO is +. I think the west is a little more important to us, and that is rather hostile for the next 10 days or so. NYC south is probably cooked for the most part, but never say never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Your latitude. Having a ridiculous neg NAO is better for the ma...you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 This year, we needed the -nao, without it as ray said it would have been hell, last feb and march with a -nao was horrific. Last year was an anomaly, look it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Torchey Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Last year was an anomaly, look it up. I dont care what it was, it sucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Having a ridiculous neg NAO is better for the ma...you are wrong. Ask Phil, Joe, Earthlight, folks in Coastal SNE how wrong I am, Dec 19 th 09 for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Still doesn't - the point is whether people see an -NAO and go into goodie goodie for us auto-pilot. That's that mistake - and the point that isn't going across for some reason. The reason it isn't going across is because folks don't seem to understand the deeper meteorological reasoning, say they ignore it and slip back into the same vamp. The -NAO was the one reason we didn't have these storms running through our fannies. Look what happened when it turned +. Sure the big transitioning regimes are the large QPF makers, but having blocking to our ne was the big reason why we had such a good 6-8 week period. That, and the big MJO wave in early January. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 I dont care what it was, it sucked. You don't care why so it sucked at that time but in Dec you loved it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Ask Phil, Joe, Earthlight, folks in Coastal SNE how wrong I am, Dec 19 th 09 for example. I agree that last year was too much of a -NAO. It was too much of a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Ask Phil, Joe, Earthlight, folks in Coastal SNE how wrong I am, Dec 19 th last year for example. What in the world does one event prove....the FACT of the matter is that we get big snow storms with the NAO bottomed out, but that is not the OPTIMAL state....it is for the ma. Think about what that implies....was is fluke that we got so badly screwed last year, yes....does it mean that neg NAO is bad, no. But when we have a neg NAO THAT extreme, the odds of us getting screwed are greater than when it is less extreme and more variable. I'll bet you $500 that Will would back me up on this because I'm correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Torchey Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 You don't care why so it sucked at that time but in Dec you loved it. My point is that a -nao does not always mean snow, I prefer a nao around nuetral dipping negative in flux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 I agree that last year was too much of a -NAO. It was too much of a good thing. PVs over Greenland rock, remember April 1997. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 The point is that it is not a stagnant state but having it firmly Neg and blocking in place. I will take that winter and chances 100% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 My point is that a -nao does not always mean snow, I prefer a nao around nuetral dipping negative in flux Exactly....prob a little more neg than neutral, but.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 What in the world does one event prove....the FACT of the matter is that we get big snow storms with the NAO bottomed out, but that is not the OPTIMAL state....it is for the ma. Think about what that implies....was is fluke that we got so badly screwed last year, yes....does it mean that neg NAO is bad, no. But when we have a neg NAO THAT extreme, the odds of us getting screwed are greater than when it is less extreme and more variable. I'll bet you $500 that Will would back me up on this because I'm correct. You're right, it was too extreme. Just think of what would happen if it weakened enough to come 100 miles north. I don't see why that is hard to understand. Like anything that has to do with weather, it takes the right balance of phenomenon to produce epic results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 You're right, it was too extreme. Just think of what would happen of it weakened enough to come 100 miles north. I don't see why that is hard to understand. Like anything that has to do with weather, it takes the right balance of phenomenon to produce epic results. Right....thanks. Last year still could have worked out, but it didn't because when you go that extreme, that is the risk you run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 PVs over Greenland rock, remember April 1997. I was just thinking about that storm today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 My point is that a -nao does not always mean snow, I prefer a nao around nuetral dipping negative in flux Of course it is not a guarantee but sure raises the odds,facts are facts. Our snowiest consistently cold best winters are dominated by a Neg NAO state. Last year was an anomaly but then again I finished at average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski MRG Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 AMEN brother, let sping spung, then out of nowhere around March 17th, an absolute wet snowbomb crushes everyone from 3 miles ne of tubes across all of sne with the exception of the berks, the coastal plain gets buried ne winds rip 40+ and temps hover around 31. Meanwhile MRG melts, and the codo crusher is gone withing 4 days, and we head straight to summer. I honestly favor this scenario...but as of now, be done with it, already. Nothing worse than rainers and 5* mornings. Both rippin' bongs again this afternoon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 What in the world does one event prove....the FACT of the matter is that we get big snow storms with the NAO bottomed out, but that is not the OPTIMAL state....it is for the ma. Think about what that implies....was is fluke that we got so badly screwed last year, yes....does it mean that neg NAO is bad, no. But when we have a neg NAO THAT extreme, the odds of us getting screwed are greater than when it is less extreme and more variable. I'll bet you $500 that Will would back me up on this because I'm correct. LOL I love the way you always work Will into your justifications, but anyways, off course, I posted extremities are anomalies. However do not forget last year during the violently Neg period we missed getting completely lambasted by one erratic vorticity max, and Will will back me up on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Torchey Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Both rippin' bongs again this afternoon? Touche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Of course it is not a guarantee but sure raises the odds,facts are facts. Our snowiest consistently cold best winters are dominated by a Neg NAO state. Last year was an anomaly but then again I finished at average. Well we are talking two different things. Yes in general a -NAO state is good, however it is possible to have too much of a good thing. Now sure '58 and '69 it was super negative, but last year was even stronger than that and very west based. We also have to keep in mind that you can't always compare years and expect similar results. There are reasons why '58 and '69 did well, even with epic blocking. Timing and placement are everything. So while mdt to strong blocking is still very favorable for sne, we have to be careful with the placement and strength of the ridge. Last year was an example of that. I just like to see the general state negative, but I know for sne, the correlation to heavier snows is not as strong as it is in the MA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 You're right, it was too extreme. Just think of what would happen if it weakened enough to come 100 miles north. I don't see why that is hard to understand. Like anything that has to do with weather, it takes the right balance of phenomenon to produce epic results. Confluence was too strong, correct? not the raw numbers, look back and compare raw Neg numbers, placement of the state also matters. I cannot see why that's hard to understand that we win more than lose over the centuries with a Neg overall look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris L Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 LOL I love the way you always work Will into your justifications, but anyways, off course like I posted extremities are anomalies. However do not forget last year during the violently Neg period we missed getting completely lambasted by one erratic vorticity max, and Will will back me up on that. The confluence was a shade too strong.. February 6 2010, with the Polar Vortex just north of Maine, had it move out in time.... Would have been an epic blizzard from DC to BOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Torchey Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Confluence was too strong, correct? not the raw numbers, look back and compare raw Neg numbers, placement of the state also matters. I cannot see why that's hard to understand that we win more than lose over the centuries with a Neg overall look. Steve, I dont think anyone is arguing against a -nao, just that it does not ALways produce the same results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 LOL Ray want to know something funny? I just had a flash back to that Sunday (3/30/97) when the coldfront went through around 6pm that night. I remember coming back from dinner and getting out of my car..noticing the north wind starting to blow. I remember thinking.."Alright well here it is, hopefully something good happens tomorrow." And the rest is history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 LOL I love the way you always work Will into your justifications, but anyways, off course, I posted extremities are anomalies. However do not forget last year during the violently Neg period we missed getting completely lambasted by one erratic vorticity max, and Will will back me up on that. Well, I agree that last year was a fluke in that we fared that poorly, but again....you run that risk when you have a -15 SD NAO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Well we are talking two different things. Yes in general a -NAO state is good, however it is possible to have too much of a good thing. Now sure '58 and '69 it was super negative, but last year was even stronger than that and very west based. We also have to keep in mind that you can't always compare years and expect similar results. There are reasons why '58 and '69 did well, even with epic blocking. Timing and placement are everything. So while mdt to strong blocking is still very favorable for sne, we have to be careful with the placement and strength of the ridge. Last year was an example of that. I just like to see the general state negative, but I know for sne, the correlation to heavier snows is not as strong as it is in the MA. Confluence was too strong, correct? not the raw numbers, look back and compare raw Neg numbers, placement of the state also matters. I cannot see why that's hard to understand that we win more than lose over the centuries with a Neg overall look. Steve, I dont think anyone is arguing against a -nao, just that it does not ALways produce the same results. Yes placement and timing are important. Jan '05 had a +NAO before the blizzard, but every storm was timed perfectly to max out over my area before getting ready to taint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Steve, I dont think anyone is arguing against a -nao, just that it does not ALways produce the same results. There is one who is and it ain't Scott or Ray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Last winter sucked, End of story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.