Possible Snow Gradient Explanation

[tacoman25]

So give us a plausible reason. Tell us why we should use an October correlation in seasonal forecasting other than "because it's there." If we don't have a reason, then how would we be able to determine whether we should use it or not beyond the pure odds?

As I said, me or anyone else providing a plausible reason doesn't validate the correlation. At least not in my mind. And I don't think whoever points out the correlation has to immediately have an answer for why it exists...that could certainly be a topic of discussion. Regardless, I don't see the problem with looking for reasons the correlation is there, instead of just acting like it doesn't exist.

I can only guess, but I think the most likely reason we would see such a correlation would have something to do with seasonal wavelength changes. In addition, by October we generally have a pretty good idea of how a -ENSO event is taking shape, where the primary forcing in the tropical Pacific is focused, etc. My guess is that most years that setup carries over to winter to a certain extent.

[cooling climate]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you either have something mistaken or have the wrong person. I think you are confusing this original post's intent which isn't a winter outlook. No crap it is a theory; everything is a theory until new evidence emerges to discount it. That is science. And in your futile attempt to argue for a cold picture, you clearly missed the point of the original thread and what it is saying: the lingering +QBO helps promote a more poleward Aleutian High and more cold air.

So as much as I'm afraid to ask...what the hell are you talking about?

The Point being that last winter you busted big time with your theories

etc although this in itself is not important. What is important is that

when you read through this thread it sounds like you have all the answers

when in fact as I said in the post above they are just your theories.

By my reackoning a - QBO will more often than not lead to greater blocking,

greater stratospheric warmings and a higher latitude Aleutian high or - EPO

high than a +QBO, especially during prolonged low solar activity which we

are generally still in apart from the odd spilkes.

[VAwxman]

The Point being that last winter you busted big time with your theories

etc although this in itself is not important. What is important is that

when you read through this thread it sounds like you have all the answers

when in fact as I said in the post above they are just your theories.

By my reackoning a - QBO will more often than not lead to greater blocking,

greater stratospheric warmings and a higher latitude Aleutian high or - EPO

high than a +QBO, especially during prolonged low solar activity which we

are generally still in apart from the odd spilkes.

What part of...

'This year may actually end up being more in the "not so clear cut camp"'

...makes it sound like he has all the answers? I don't see it.

[HM]

The Point being that last winter you busted big time with your theories

etc although this in itself is not important. What is important is that

when you read through this thread it sounds like you have all the answers

when in fact as I said in the post above they are just your theories.

By my reackoning a - QBO will more often than not lead to greater blocking,

greater stratospheric warmings and a higher latitude Aleutian high or - EPO

high than a +QBO, especially during prolonged low solar activity which we

are generally still in apart from the odd spilkes.

I am not sure who you are but, as hard as it is to count this high, all 3 of your posts have been nasty and directed at me. You want to tell me what's up? Did we have some issue a long time ago or something because I don't understand what's happening here.

1.Nothing about my language is certain. Look at the title of the thread for crying out loud. Just because I am excited or adamant about something doesn't mean I "have all the answers". Your problem with me is more likely personal.

2. You didn't receive a winter outlook from me last year, just random posts here or there. I already stated numerous times that I ended the blocking too early. Where was your winter outlook? Where were your thoughts? My clients did fine last year because I gave them advance notice about a harsh start to winter and the potential for the Southeast to be the coldest. I changed my tune about January when we got closer. What does any of this have to do with this thread?

3. Your understanding of the QBO is basic 1980s drivel and a play off the HT relationship. This thread was meant to challenge old ideas and present new ones about how the QBO may affect Pacific circulation during a cold ENSO event. Care to comment on the actual material?

[HM]

What part of...

'This year may actually end up being more in the "not so clear cut camp"'

...makes it sound like he has all the answers? I don't see it.

He is likely a troll or someone in disguise (what's the difference) because all 3 of his posts have been directed at me. I love how he is telling me I busted big time last year and never saw my outlook. Apparently if you make a long range mistake, a totally new idea now has no merit.

[uncle W]

He is likely a troll or someone in disguise (what's the difference) because all 3 of his posts have been directed at me. I love how he is telling me I busted big time last year and never saw my outlook. Apparently if you make a long range mistake, a totally new idea now has no merit.

could it be stormless2003? lol...Speaking of 2003 I remember one of your better long range forecasts for December 6th 2003...A grand Slam...

[ORH_wxman]

So give us a plausible reason. Tell us why we should use an October correlation in seasonal forecasting other than "because it's there." If we don't have a reason, then how would we be able to determine whether we should use it or not beyond the pure odds?

NAO/AO in the autumn and Northern hemispheric snow cover in the autumn are popular correlations but the exact processes behind them are not exactly understood. Just because we don't know the exact physical reasons behind the relationship, doesn't mean we should ignore them.

[WeatherX]

Good thread Taco. The only reason they're in here is because they didn't do they're homework....Poo Poo Wah.....

[nzucker]

Good thread Taco. The only reason they're in here is because they didn't do they're homework....Poo Poo Wah.....

That's my students every day.

[HM]

NAO/AO in the autumn and Northern hemispheric snow cover in the autumn are popular correlations but the exact processes behind them are not exactly understood. Just because we don't know the exact physical reasons behind the relationship, doesn't mean we should ignore them.

The word used was "plausible" and there are plausible theories for the examples you've listed. Whether they end up being proven false later on is irrelevant because the idea makes sense to us now, given the concepts that we understand at this time.

Land-based surface temperatures can be affected by numerous things, various patterns etc. I am not suggesting you should flat out ignore a good correlation, but I think you should at least try to dig deeper into why it may exist. There is a lot of noise in science, so a good investigation is worth it always and that includes looking at what data you are using and how you are using it.

[tacoman25]

The word used was "plausible" and there are plausible theories for the examples you've listed. Whether they end up being proven false later on is irrelevant because the idea makes sense to us now, given the concepts that we understand at this time.

Land-based surface temperatures can be affected by numerous things, various patterns etc. I am not suggesting you should flat out ignore a good correlation, but I think you should at least try to dig deeper into why it may exist. There is a lot of noise in science, so a good investigation is worth it always and that includes looking at what data you are using and how you are using it.

Yes, but over a huge area like the continental U.S., land-based temperatures are going to be reflective of the largescale patterns the vast majority of the time. Exact anomalies with the patterns will vary, but the general temperature gradients are consistent.

[HM]

Yes, but over a huge area like the continental U.S., land-based temperatures are going to be reflective of the largescale patterns the vast majority of the time. Exact anomalies with the patterns will vary, but the general temperature gradients are consistent.

Then show us what that may be. We aren't asking for you to be correct. My issue with your work wasn't actually what this thread has been about lately (correlations) but was about how you picked your years. Which was discussed in the NE sub forum.

By the way, did you see my response yesterday? You never responded...

[tacoman25]

Then show us what that may be. We aren't asking for you to be correct. My issue with your work wasn't actually what this thread has been about lately (correlations) but was about how you picked your years. Which was discussed in the NE sub forum.

By the way, did you see my response yesterday? You never responded...

I think my conversation with Ellinwood pretty much covered what you are asking about. As far as how I picked my years, look at the October correlation thread again. I don't know how it could be more clear, or why you don't like the years I picked. It's pretty clearcut.

[HM]

I think my conversation with Ellinwood pretty much covered what you are asking about. As far as how I picked my years, look at the October correlation thread again. I don't know how it could be more clear, or why you don't like the years I picked. It's pretty clearcut.

I reread the conversation and I see exactly what you are saying. I also have to apologize for being a bit demanding then, given your philosophies about this stuff. Sometimes I get caught up in the ideas and explanations because that's what I like doing and feel strongly about it.

I'll take a look at your October thread. The main issue was basically the pre-1950 years and then a few not so clear examples. Just off the top of my head: tropical forcing in the autumn is key for whether a PNA or RNA sets up, especially in Oct-Nov. To put it simply...tropical forcing behaving like a cold ENSO scenario (w. pac/Indonesia) will tend to produce cool anomalies across the East; while, the forcing that shifts to the dateline (like a warm event) tends to produce a warmer pattern.

Could this somehow set up something down the road for the winter? I have no idea...

[tacoman25]

I reread the conversation and I see exactly what you are saying. I also have to apologize for being a bit demanding then, given your philosophies about this stuff. Sometimes I get caught up in the ideas and explanations because that's what I like doing and feel strongly about it.

I'll take a look at your October thread. The main issue was basically the pre-1950 years and then a few not so clear examples. Just off the top of my head: tropical forcing in the autumn is key for whether a PNA or RNA sets up, especially in Oct-Nov. To put it simply...tropical forcing behaving like a cold ENSO scenario (w. pac/Indonesia) will tend to produce cool anomalies across the East; while, the forcing that shifts to the dateline (like a warm event) tends to produce a warmer pattern.

Could this somehow set up something down the road for the winter? I have no idea...

No worries. So you think the answer could be found in MJO tendencies?

[ORH_wxman]

The word used was "plausible" and there are plausible theories for the examples you've listed. Whether they end up being proven false later on is irrelevant because the idea makes sense to us now, given the concepts that we understand at this time.

Land-based surface temperatures can be affected by numerous things, various patterns etc. I am not suggesting you should flat out ignore a good correlation, but I think you should at least try to dig deeper into why it may exist. There is a lot of noise in science, so a good investigation is worth it always and that includes looking at what data you are using and how you are using it.

Oh I wasn't saying just take correlations for what they are. I was saying we shouldn't ignore them even if we can't understand them provided the correlation is strong. The one's I listed are strong but we still have a limited understanding on them. I agree its great to dig into WHY the correlations exist, as you already said. I think that's what's been done already on these. There's some ideas on how they cause the changes, but they are still just theories at this point.

I was merely stating that if we have a strong correlation but cannot physically explain it yet, we probably shouldn't just throw it out the window. We should probably keep it in mind and hopefully eventually we can come up with a good physical reason on why it exists.

[HM]

No worries. So you think the answer could be found in MJO tendencies?

Well, yes, it may be more to do with tropical forcing which relates back to bigger players. In fact, the October connection may be a great way of letting you know that the stratosphere-troposphere connection is going to do its thing for the upcoming winter. Based on what I am finding, it ties perfectly into my thread here. I'll post the findings in your post at some point today and what I did.

[tacoman25]

Well, yes, it may be more to do with tropical forcing which relates back to bigger players. In fact, the October connection may be a great way of letting you know that the stratosphere-troposphere connection is going to do its thing for the upcoming winter. Based on what I am finding, it ties perfectly into my thread here. I'll post the findings in your post at some point today and what I did.

Cool, looking forward to it.

[Ellinwood]

Cool, looking forward to it.

I want to apologize for acting so harshly towards to the correlations you posted. While you did not have the full explanation behind it, it is a legitimate correlation no matter what value I personally choose to put towards it. I'm just not a fan of those who arbitrarily find correlations based on picking and choosing certain data without backing it up with a reason as to why it exists, which is what it seemed like you were doing.

Thank you HM for researching the possible (probable) cause(s) behind the correlation. HM briefly explained it on DBM, but it will be nice to see what the full write-up offers.

[tacoman25]

I want to apologize for acting so harshly towards to the correlations you posted. While you did not have the full explanation behind it, it is a legitimate correlation no matter what value I personally choose to put towards it. I'm just not a fan of those who arbitrarily find correlations based on picking and choosing certain data without backing it up with a reason as to why it exists, which is what it seemed like you were doing.

Thank you HM for researching the possible (probable) cause(s) behind the correlation. HM briefly explained it on DBM, but it will be nice to see what the full write-up offers.

It's fine, you had legitimate questions. And I agree, it's always good to research why correlations may exist.

[usedtobe]

I wonder how much the october temp correlations and HM finding about the ridge extension into AK varies with the solar forcing. The findings about the 50 mb winds are interesting but I wonder whether we actually have enough data about the QBO aspect to really know especially if there is a difference due to the solar forcing.

I came across this graphic in this presentation

http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/events/ws.2008/Presentations/Conifer/WACCM/SassiWWG.pdf

It implies there is a pretty big difference in the impact between solar min and solar max periods between QBO east and west events and the differences also show up in the temps over the CONUS during the cold season.

I guess I'm asking how much of the holtan_tan effect still might be involved in the process. It sounds from HM that the years with a westerly winds at 50 mb pretty much all had the ridge stronger than normal farther north than normal and that it didn't vary so much with the solar forcing. Is that right?

[HM]

Wes, thanks for the post and information. There a few things here that suggest we cannot make a comparison between my work and their work. First starters, I only focused on cold ENSO events, while they did not distinguish ENSO years. Secondly, the zonal wind level of importance was 50mb as it appeared from my rough findings. In their presentation, they focused on the 30mb level only and based the solar activity strictly on the f10.7 cm flux. What I found is that all cold ENSO events with a westerly averaged mean flow in the lower stratosphere of the equatorial regions had a more poleward Aleutian High for the DJFM period. All of them. I left the sun out of the equation, for the sake of sample size and multiple parameters, but let's see if the + QBO years had an average flux lower than the -QBO years:

Cool ENSO years with a lower +QBO and their mean DJFM f10.7 cm flux:

55-56: 1509

61-62: 980.5

64-65: 766.75

66-67: 1449.75

71-72: 1274

73-74: 818.5

75-76: 741.25

85-86: 771.5

99-00: 1773.25

08-09: 695.5

10-11: 945

67-68:1669.75

88-89: 2156.75

95-96: 723.25

Average flux: 1162.48

Cool ENSO years with a lower -QBO and their mean DJFM f10.7 cm flux:

56-57: 2173.5

62-63: 797.5

70-71: 1412.75

74-75: 763

89-90: 1975.5

96-97: 747.75

00-01: 1661.5

05-06: 815.25

07-08: 742

84-85: 743.5

98-99: 1402.5

01-02: 2120.5

Average flux: 1279.604

The average flux of both data sets is around the same. However, they define the units as 1500 for solar max and 900 for solar min. The westerly sample has 5 solar max and 6 solar min with 3 in the middle. The easterly sample has 6 solar max and 6 solar min. The westerly wind set has two more years.

I would say that all phases of the sun are well represented in all the years. Personally, I think the raw flux number is nonsense and the more important thing is where you are within the cycle and how the geomagnetic activity/IMF are doing.

[usedtobe]

Wes, thanks for the post and information. There a few things here that suggest we cannot make a comparison between my work and their work. First starters, I only focused on cold ENSO events, while they did not distinguish ENSO years. Secondly, the zonal wind level of importance was 50mb as it appeared from my rough findings. In their presentation, they focused on the 30mb level only and based the solar activity strictly on the f10.7 cm flux. What I found is that all cold ENSO events with a westerly averaged mean flow in the lower stratosphere of the equatorial regions had a more poleward Aleutian High for the DJFM period. All of them. I left the sun out of the equation, for the sake of sample size and multiple parameters, but let's see if the + QBO years had an average flux lower than the -QBO years:

Cool ENSO years with a lower +QBO and their mean DJFM f10.7 cm flux:

55-56: 1509

61-62: 980.5

64-65: 766.75

66-67: 1449.75

71-72: 1274

73-74: 818.5

75-76: 741.25

85-86: 771.5

99-00: 1773.25

08-09: 695.5

10-11: 945

67-68:1669.75

88-89: 2156.75

95-96: 723.25

Average flux: 1162.48

Cool ENSO years with a lower -QBO and their mean DJFM f10.7 cm flux:

56-57: 2173.5

62-63: 797.5

70-71: 1412.75

74-75: 763

89-90: 1975.5

96-97: 747.75

00-01: 1661.5

05-06: 815.25

07-08: 742

84-85: 743.5

98-99: 1402.5

01-02: 2120.5

Average flux: 1279.604

The average flux of both data sets is around the same. However, they define the units as 1500 for solar max and 900 for solar min. The westerly sample has 5 solar max and 6 solar min with 3 in the middle. The easterly sample has 6 solar max and 6 solar min. The westerly wind set has two more years.

I would say that all phases of the sun are well represented in all the years. Personally, I think the raw flux number is nonsense and the more important thing is where you are within the cycle and how the geomagnetic activity/IMF are doing.

Thanks, that's what I thought from your earlier post.

[HM]

Here is also the samples' average DJFM ap index.

55-56: 11.625

61-62: 13.75

64-65: 7

66-67: 10

71-72: 11.25

73-74: 16.25

75-76: 16.25

85-86: 16.75

99-00: 12

08-09: 4.5

10-11: 6

67-68: 13.5

88-89: 22

95-96: 9.75

avg 12.1875

56-57: 11.625

62-63: 13.75

70-71: 11

74-75: 17.25

89-90: 19

96-97: 8.75

00-01: 10.5

05-06: 7.25

07-08: 9

84-85: 15

98-99: 11

01-02: 9.25

avg 11.94791667

Both data sets have roughly the same ap index average, too.

[BethesdaWX]

Wes, thanks for the post and information. There a few things here that suggest we cannot make a comparison between my work and their work. First starters, I only focused on cold ENSO events, while they did not distinguish ENSO years. Secondly, the zonal wind level of importance was 50mb as it appeared from my rough findings. In their presentation, they focused on the 30mb level only and based the solar activity strictly on the f10.7 cm flux. What I found is that all cold ENSO events with a westerly averaged mean flow in the lower stratosphere of the equatorial regions had a more poleward Aleutian High for the DJFM period. All of them. I left the sun out of the equation, for the sake of sample size and multiple parameters, but let's see if the + QBO years had an average flux lower than the -QBO years:

Cool ENSO years with a lower +QBO and their mean DJFM f10.7 cm flux:

55-56: 1509

61-62: 980.5

64-65: 766.75

66-67: 1449.75

71-72: 1274

73-74: 818.5

75-76: 741.25

85-86: 771.5

99-00: 1773.25

08-09: 695.5

10-11: 945

67-68:1669.75

88-89: 2156.75

95-96: 723.25

Average flux: 1162.48

Cool ENSO years with a lower -QBO and their mean DJFM f10.7 cm flux:

56-57: 2173.5

62-63: 797.5

70-71: 1412.75

74-75: 763

89-90: 1975.5

96-97: 747.75

00-01: 1661.5

05-06: 815.25

07-08: 742

84-85: 743.5

98-99: 1402.5

01-02: 2120.5

Average flux: 1279.604

The average flux of both data sets is around the same. However, they define the units as 1500 for solar max and 900 for solar min. The westerly sample has 5 solar max and 6 solar min with 3 in the middle. The easterly sample has 6 solar max and 6 solar min. The westerly wind set has two more years.

I would say that all phases of the sun are well represented in all the years. Personally, I think the raw flux number is nonsense and the more important thing is where you are within the cycle and how the geomagnetic activity/IMF are doing.

Would that result in similar geomagnetic sun analogs such as 1967/68 needing a higher weight to them when attempting a composite?

[HM]

Would that result in similar geomagnetic sun analogs such as 1967/68 needing a higher weight to them when attempting a composite?

Could you rephrase the question because I am not sure what you are asking me.

[BethesdaWX]

Could you rephrase the question because I am not sure what you are asking me.

In the analog years you listed based on QBO configuration, how important, or in other words, how heavily should one "weight" similarities or differences in the Geomagnetic Sun? I see years on there such as 1967/68, that feature a weaker geomagnetic sun, while other years such as 1995/96 feature a stronger geomagnetic sun.

Basically I'm curious about how much of a role the geomagnetic sun plays here.

[HM]

In the analog years you listed based on QBO configuration, how important, or in other words, how heavily should one "weight" similarities or differences in the Geomagnetic Sun? I see years on there such as 1967/68, that feature a weaker geomagnetic sun, while other years such as 1995/96 feature a stronger geomagnetic sun.

Basically I'm curious about how much of a role the geomagnetic sun plays here.

I wouldn't know because this information wasn't presented to be used to analog the upcoming winter, per se. I also didn't investigate the sun's role in this relationship until Wes brought up the sun. Just by taking the average DJFM f10.7cm flux/ap index, it seems that the different phases of the sun/IMF were well represented equally throughout the data sets. Other than that, I cannot comment on weighting years for this upcoming winter.

In terms of this possible relationship, are you suggesting that I should investigate the geomag activity further? In what ways?

[BethesdaWX]

I wouldn't know because this information wasn't presented to be used to analog the upcoming winter, per se. I also didn't investigate the sun's role in this relationship until Wes brought up the sun. Just by taking the average DJFM f10.7cm flux/ap index, it seems that the different phases of the sun/IMF were well represented equally throughout the data sets. Other than that, I cannot comment on weighting years for this upcoming winter.

In terms of this possible relationship, are you suggesting that I should investigate the geomag activity further? In what ways?

I'm interested in the potential relationship between Geomagnetic activity and the positioning of the Pacific Ridge & general blocking around the globe, in the QBO phases you bring up. I'm curious as to whether or not there is something worthwhile there, and if the Geomag Sun could somehow correlate to a different configuration in the blocking. My concern is sample size.

I'm barely a Met student, early in the education process, so I wouldn't know much about the relationships in the Stratosphere and whether or not there is a basis to the Geomag thing.

So yes, if sample size is large enough, perhaps seperating higher Geomagnetic Sun vs Lower Geomagnetic sun QBO phases? Just to see if there are any differences in how things look?

[HM]

I'm interested in the potential relationship between Geomagnetic activity and the positioning of the Pacific Ridge & general blocking around the globe, in the QBO phases you bring up. I'm curious as to whether or not there is something worthwhile there, and if the Geomag Sun could somehow correlate to a different configuration in the blocking. My concern is sample size.

I'm barely a Met student, early in the education process, so I wouldn't know much about the relationships in the Stratosphere and whether or not there is a basis to the Geomag thing.

So yes, if sample size is large enough, perhaps seperating higher Geomagnetic Sun vs Lower Geomagnetic sun QBO phases? Just to see if there are any differences in how things look?

I think you will find a relationship between the North Pacific circulation and geomagnetic activity. You will also find a relationship with the PDO, too. Periods of high solar/geomag activity with a +PDO will likely support a -NPI look while periods of low solar/geomag activity with a -PDO will likely support a +NPI.

With less solar protons etc. hitting the northern hemisphere, there is less destruction of ozone and a weaker zonal jet stream. This allows the environment to become blocked, should other things fall inline.