2011 Winter Banter Thread

[Fozz]

i like winter when it snows.. and that's about all. im not even really a fan of snow on the ground after it's done.. well, the first day or so perhaps.

I guess in the city it's little more than big dirty piles.

[Kevin Druff]

Sigh. I love winter. I'd prefer 30* and sunshine to 60*+ anytime from Thanksgiving to March 1.

Of course, come March, I'd like it to warm into the 60s quickly so I can get gardening.

[mitchnick]

eastery. QBO.

And you still shouldn't look at the radar to extrapolate 12 hours into the future during a developing snow storm. People did that on Oct. 29 and were dead wrong. I will continue to mock you if you continue to do so.

It doesn't matter whether or not you have anything to lose... just that you're making a forecast/statistical observation. What you have failed to show in your incessant use of the term "easterly QBO" is that you have a true understanding of how it works beyond the basic implications of the signal and what else might have to be in tandem with it in order to create the desired result (blocking and a snowy pattern along the East Coast). If you somehow DO have an adequate knowledge of the QBO, perhaps you could explain why we have a raging +AO with no blocking in sight despite the fact that we are now in a easterly QBO regime at 30mb?

And the only reason why I mock your easterly QBO tirade so much is that you seem to totally dismiss all other synoptic features in favor of it, despite the fact that it's just one small piece of a very large puzzle.

Also, it's lose, not loose (this is the third recent post that you've used it in that I've noticed... and I have you on ignore, so I don't see that many of them!).

look, I ain't gonna' get into a pi$$ing match during the holiday season

but my point was, to wait until the storm/season is over before passing judgment on my statements

and as far as the workings of the QBO, I said in my original thread that I knew what it was but admitted I didn't have the scientific expertise to explain its workings

in fact, I specifically said that it was a theory based on a statistical analysis of E QBO that went negative in June or later so don't interpret it as me running away from your question because I don't really care why it works, it's only if it works for us this year that counts from my weenie perspective

at some point, the statistics will fail; maybe this year, maybe not, but we won't know until mid-March

and no, I don't have grammar check and am too lazy to worry about proper "grammer" when posting; anyway, I'm a lawyer and "lose" isn't in my vocabulary

[H2O]

It should snow every 4 days from Dec 1 to Feb 28 every year. That is what I want.

[stormitecture]

City snow post event is nasty. No doubt there. That's why I will try to push Ian to get a car whenever I can...so he can come out more often and see the burbs and countryside post snow events.

[Bob Chill]

It should snow every 4 days from Dec 1 to Feb 28 every year. That is what I want.

Call midlo and have him build one of those front yard snow machines for you. I'll bring my kids over for sledding every day and bring a cooler of bud light too.

[Ian]

City snow post event is nasty. No doubt there. That's why I will try to push Ian to get a car whenever I can...so he can come out more often and see the burbs and countryside post snow events.

i think i told you, but my dad is moving to your 'hood soon. the place closes next week. i just want to go chasing again for now...

[Kevin Druff]

It should snow every 4 days from Dec 1 to Feb 28 every year. That is what I want.

Yes. It doesn't even have to be a lot. 2-3" max would make me happy. For that matter, I won't even be so picky as to ask that it stick to the streets or school get cancelled.

[BethesdaWX]

My personal take, I've always viewed the AO index as a way to determine the interaction between terrestrial climate signals and external forcings, due to it's impact on the global albedo value. Why would it go negative within the next 6 weeks when we have less energy to shed than we did during/afte the last El Nino? Look back at when the AO was negative. It was during the 2009/10 El Nino...it was negative during the beginning of last winter while globe was still warm...then went positive when the temp plummeted...it was negative this summer during the spike in global temps...temps represent energy. The AO directly increases the total albedo value in clouds in reconfiguring their locations toward where more direct incoming radiation can be reflected, which is what seems to happen when the atmosphere contains a higher relative load of energy to incoming solar forcing. The climate machine can only work with what it is given, and when for extended periods there is less given, feedbacks in the machine state occur to reduce the necessary budget to maintain equilibrium.

That is my opinion piece, not necessarily fact. I do hope to debate this one day

[BethesdaWX]

Should have said what we contain relative to solar forcing.

[RodneyS]

Learn something new everyday...I thought the sun started setting later the 2nd day of winter.

The amount of daylight does start to increase on the second day of winter, but sunrise and sunset times are modulated by the fact that a true solar day is exactly 24 hours only on average, owing to the fact that the earth's orbit around the sun is not circular and its axis is also tilted relative to the plane of its orbit by about 23.4 degrees. On December 9th, a true solar day is about 26.5 seconds longer than 24 hours and so -- while the amount of daylight on December 9th in DC is about 50 seconds less than on December 8th -- instead of the sun rising 25 seconds later and setting 25 seconds earlier on December 9th, it instead rises 51.5 seconds later (26.5 + 25) and sets 1.5 seconds later (26.5-25).

[Ellinwood]

look, I ain't gonna' get into a pi$$ing match during the holiday season

but my point was, to wait until the storm/season is over before passing judgment on my statements

and as far as the workings of the QBO, I said in my original thread that I knew what it was but admitted I didn't have the scientific expertise to explain its workings

in fact, I specifically said that it was a theory based on a statistical analysis of E QBO that went negative in June or later so don't interpret it as me running away from your question because I don't really care why it works, it's only if it works for us this year that counts from my weenie perspective

at some point, the statistics will fail; maybe this year, maybe not, but we won't know until mid-March

and no, I don't have grammar check and am too lazy to worry about proper "grammer" when posting; anyway, I'm a lawyer and "lose" isn't in my vocabulary

Perhaps you should take some time to learn about it, then. Typically, one doesn't go around toting some random statistic using it as an end-all without having the faintest clue as to why that statistic exists in the first place. You're telling me I'll never learn... try doing some learning yourself.

I'm all for waiting until the season to end for verification, but even if we do get blocking eventually (and I believe we will), the point of the matter is that the QBO phase is only a small part working with or against many other medium and long range teleconnections. Putting faith into any one such teleconnection like you are doing just goes to show how little you've learned over the many years you have been tracking the weather. The easterly QBO WON'T work for us if it has other things working against it.

[mitchnick]

Perhaps you should take some time to learn about it, then. Typically, one doesn't go around toting some random statistic using it as an end-all without having the faintest clue as to why that statistic exists in the first place. You're telling me I'll never learn... try doing some learning yourself.

I'm all for waiting until the season to end for verification, but even if we do get blocking eventually (and I believe we will), the point of the matter is that the QBO phase is only a small part working with or against many other medium and long range teleconnections. Putting faith into any one such teleconnection like you are doing just goes to show how little you've learned over the many years you have been tracking the weather. The easterly QBO WON'T work for us if it has other things working against it.

understand, I have a day job and it ain't wx

there is no hope for you to understand what I am saying

so like I said, no use getting into a pi$$ing contest with you during the holidays

[WinterWxLuvr]

The amount of daylight does start to increase on the second day of winter, but sunrise and sunset times are modulated by the fact that a true solar day is exactly 24 hours only on average, owing to the fact that the earth's orbit around the sun is not circular and is also tilted relative to the sun by about 23.4 degrees. On December 9th, a true solar day is about 26.5 seconds longer than 24 hours and so -- while the amount of daylight on December 9th in DC is about 50 seconds less than on December 8th -- instead of the sun rising 25 seconds later and setting 25 seconds earlier on December 9th, it instead rises 51.5 seconds later (26.5 + 25) and sets 1.5 seconds later (26.5-25).

There's more to it as well. A true "solar day" is around 23 hours and 56 minutes and some seconds ( I forget how many ). Many people think that the earth makes a revolution in 24 hours, but that isn't the case. In order for us to remain "facing" the sun at noon, we have to allow enough time in our day for the earth to swing around just a tad bit more than one revolution. We have to "make up" twelve hours from June 21 to Dec 21, otherwise we'd be in the middle of the night at noon come next June. I don't really understand the whole adding/losing of minutes just before the solstices. I do know this....it doesn't apply to both sunset and sunrise. If you check, you'll see that even though we add a minute to the sunset every three days or so for a while, we actually lose a minute here and there in the mornings for a while. And the reverse is true in June.

Edit: And don't forget the fact that we actually see the sun while it is below the horizon. Don't know if there's a role for that to play as well.

[BTRWx]

Is Accuweather being a bit premature with this article for the end of December? Would they be basing their conclusion on the long-range GFS?...Or are we due for another pattern change? http://www.accuweath...christmas/58851

[H2O]

Call midlo and have him build one of those front yard snow machines for you. I'll bring my kids over for sledding every day and bring a cooler of bud light too.

I will make it so. No need for the cooler tho. The snow will be our ice.

[mitchnick]

Is Accuweather being a bit premature with this article for the end of December? Would they be basing their conclusion on the long-range GFS?...Or are we due for another pattern change? http://www.accuweath...christmas/58851

no marketing

actually, most of the computers or their ensembles show a big storm

it'll probably be something closer to this week's rain storm for the I95 cities, if not most of the "east",so I wouldn't get too excited yet

[biodhokie]

Is Accuweather being a bit premature with this article for the end of December? Would they be basing their conclusion on the long-range GFS?...Or are we due for another pattern change? http://www.accuweath...christmas/58851

I always take accuweather forcasts with a grain of salt. Realistically if that pattern verifies, based on intuition is that DCA, BWI and RIC are going to see rain (yet again ) while the mountain regions will get RASN.

[MacChump]

no marketing

actually, most of the computers or their ensembles show a big storm

it'll probably be something closer to this week's rain storm for the I95 cities, if not most of the "east",so I wouldn't get too excited yet

i'm sure they'll all loose the storm anyway

[RodneyS]

There's more to it as well. A true "solar day" is around 23 hours and 56 minutes and some seconds ( I forget how many ). Many people think that the earth makes a revolution in 24 hours, but that isn't the case. In order for us to remain "facing" the sun at noon, we have to allow enough time in our day for the earth to swing around just a tad bit more than one revolution. We have to "make up" twelve hours from June 21 to Dec 21, otherwise we'd be in the middle of the night at noon come next June. I don't really understand the whole adding/losing of minutes just before the solstices. I do know this....it doesn't apply to both sunset and sunrise. If you check, you'll see that even though we add a minute to the sunset every three days or so for a while, we actually lose a minute here and there in the mornings for a while. And the reverse is true in June.

Edit: And don't forget the fact that we actually see the sun while it is below the horizon. Don't know if there's a role for that to play as well.

You're confusing a solar day with a sidereal day. A true solar day is exactly 24 hours a day on average, whereas a sidereal day is a virtually constant 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4.091 seconds each day; see http://en.wikipedia....ki/Sidereal_day

A sidereal day is the period of the earth's rotation on its axis relative to fixed stars, but since the earth is also revolving around the sun in the same direction as it is rotating (i.e., in an easterly direction), it takes, on average, an additional 3 minutes and 55.909 seconds for the earth to get back into the same position relative to the sun. A solar day on average is thus the sum of 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4.091 seconds + 3 minutes and 55.909 seconds, which equals exactly 24 hours. However, because the earth generally is making lesser or greater easterly progress relative to the sun than its average time, a true solar day can vary by up to 30 seconds from 24 hours. In early December, the earth is making close to its greatest easterly progress relative to the sun both because it is approaching its closest distance to the sun (perihelion) and because it is approaching a solstice, when a greater portion of the earth's movement relative to the sun is in a due easterly, rather than in a southeasterly or northeasterly, direction. Accordingly, a true solar day in early December is greater than 24 hours, and that causes both sunrises and sunsets to be later than they otherwise would be. The phenomenon of true solar days being different in length than average solar days is referred to as "the equation of time."

Finally, you are correct that we can see the sun when it is below the horizon, but that is true every day of the year. However, daily atmospheric conditions can affect when we can see the sun, which is why actual sunrise and sunset times may vary from forecast times throughout the year.

[Ellinwood]

understand, I have a day job and it ain't wx

there is no hope for you to understand what I am saying

so like I said, no use getting into a pi$$ing contest with you during the holidays

You think I learn all this at work? Hardly. Most of it comes from my spare time, which admittedly I have more than most people do. You obviously have enough time to learn SOME since you have already accumulated over 4000 posts. It's not like it takes a college course worth of time to learn these things... just a matter of picking up on a few things here and there. I'd HOPE that you would try to put a little effort in understanding what it is you spend so much time reading about, especially given how long you've been doing it.

[Bob Chill]

I will make it so. No need for the cooler tho. The snow will be our ice.

That's a great idea. My 7 year old son can grab one when he's thirsty without having to bother us.

[mitchnick]

You think I learn all this at work? Hardly. Most of it comes from my spare time, which admittedly I have more than most people do. You obviously have enough time to learn SOME since you have already accumulated over 4000 posts. It's not like it takes a college course worth of time to learn these things... just a matter of picking up on a few things here and there. I'd HOPE that you would try to put a little effort in understanding what it is you spend so much time reading about, especially given how long you've been doing it.

you know, its obvious you have a hard on because I called out you forecast from the storm the other day, even though you mocked me for using radar and sat pics

at this point your only effort is to try to belittle me

but before you start schooling me, let's review why you feel the need to keep this going when

here was your update map:

to which I said: sat and rad pics tell me that N WV and Garrett Co. end quicker than you are thinking, but I got nothing to loose giving my opinion

and you responded: I didn't say when it was going to end, so how is it possible you think it'll end quicker than I'm thinking?

LOL @ using the current radar for extrapolating precip on a developing system.

well, it turned out I was right and you have had a hard-on for me ever since

but it gets better...you graded yourself here and attached the forecast map and verification map

problem is, your verification map is flat out bogus based on NWS obs map link

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/lwx/events/snowmaps/

when you go to this link and pull up 20111208 you get a map that shows traces in areas you claim received 2-4", with only at inch at Frostburg

in 1", and the obs at the bottom of the page show how few measurements there were above an inch

in fact no areas outside the very high spots received the kind of snow you claim on your verification map

I said I didn't want to get into a pi$$ing match, but you won't give it up

if I am wrong, I'll admit my mistake on the QBO, unlike you are capable of doing

moreover, you've made it very clear that even if this year gives BWI/D CA AN snows, you will come up with every other reason why it happened

so you've got yourself all set-up, at least in your mind, for a win-win on this issue

pretty obvious to me

go out and enjoy the weekend and get over it and me

[TUweathermanDD]

you know, its obvious you have a hard on because I called out you forecast from the storm the other day, even though you mocked me for using radar and sat pics

at this point your only effort is to try to belittle me

but before you start schooling me, let's review why you feel the need to keep this going when

here was your update map:

http://www.americanw...ost__p__1174444

to which I said: sat and rad pics tell me that N WV and Garrett Co. end quicker than you are thinking, but I got nothing to loose giving my opinion

http://www.americanw...ost__p__1174477

and you responded: I didn't say when it was going to end, so how is it possible you think it'll end quicker than I'm thinking?

LOL @ using the current radar for extrapolating precip on a developing system.

http://www.americanw...ost__p__1174493

well, it turned out I was right and you have had a hard-on for me ever since

but it gets better...you graded yourself here and attached the forecast map and verification map

http://www.americanw...ost__p__1179515

problem is, your verification map is flat out bogus based on NWS obs map link

http://www.erh.noaa....vents/snowmaps/

when you go to this link and pull up 20111208 you get a map that shows traces in areas you claim received 2-4", with only at inch at Frostburg

in 1", and the obs at the bottom of the page show how few measurements there were above an inch

in fact no areas outside the very high spots received the kind of snow you claim on your verification map

I said I didn't want to get into a pi$$ing match, but you won't give it up

if I am wrong, I'll admit my mistake on the QBO, unlike you are capable of doing

moreover, you've made it very clear that even if this year gives BWI/D CA AN snows, you will come up with every other reason why it happened

so you've got yourself all set-up, at least in your mind, for a win-win on this issue

pretty obvious to me

go out and enjoy the weekend and get over it and me

If I were him, I'd say you got me and pass it on, because I agree with you Mitch. No reason why you can't nowcast a bit and extrapolate the radar imagery out a few hours, especially since even the short range models were having consistency troubles. As for your argument about the east based QBO, I don't really see the problem, he has no reason to tell you he's more right than you even if it may be another teleconnection. With that in mind, I find it a bit childish when someone doesn't admit to being wrong about a system. My map verified really well around and NW of the cities giving them not even T-1. In all honestly though, I feel like you have a grasp on the situation and its a shame you need to give this much effort just to show that you were right about the system. Regardless, good work, and ellinwood I know you are not really throwing missiles at him, but sometimes its good to just admit when you're wrong, it builds character and prepares for any failures that might come up in the future. Hope to see you two getting along next time snow is in the forecast.

[Avdave]

Ok settle down everyone, just enjoy the fine photo from Keyers Ridge Md

[Ellinwood]

you know, its obvious you have a hard on because I called out you forecast from the storm the other day, even though you mocked me for using radar and sat pics

at this point your only effort is to try to belittle me

but before you start schooling me, let's review why you feel the need to keep this going when

here was your update map:

http://www.americanw...ost__p__1174444

to which I said: sat and rad pics tell me that N WV and Garrett Co. end quicker than you are thinking, but I got nothing to loose giving my opinion

http://www.americanw...ost__p__1174477

and you responded: I didn't say when it was going to end, so how is it possible you think it'll end quicker than I'm thinking?

LOL @ using the current radar for extrapolating precip on a developing system.

http://www.americanw...ost__p__1174493

well, it turned out I was right and you have had a hard-on for me ever since

but it gets better...you graded yourself here and attached the forecast map and verification map

http://www.americanw...ost__p__1179515

problem is, your verification map is flat out bogus based on NWS obs map link

http://www.erh.noaa....vents/snowmaps/

when you go to this link and pull up 20111208 you get a map that shows traces in areas you claim received 2-4", with only at inch at Frostburg

in 1", and the obs at the bottom of the page show how few measurements there were above an inch

in fact no areas outside the very high spots received the kind of snow you claim on your verification map

I said I didn't want to get into a pi$$ing match, but you won't give it up

if I am wrong, I'll admit my mistake on the QBO, unlike you are capable of doing

moreover, you've made it very clear that even if this year gives BWI/D CA AN snows, you will come up with every other reason why it happened

so you've got yourself all set-up, at least in your mind, for a win-win on this issue

pretty obvious to me

go out and enjoy the weekend and get over it and me

Wow... that's not it at all. I've actually hated your posts since the beginning... my forecast has nothing to do with what I've been going on about today. I know that I busted in key areas, I've acknowledged it and moved on.

My snowfall verification maps are smoothed by eye (as objectively as possible). I can't grab every detail of every hill and valley, and it's not going to be perfect.

As for the snowfall verification map you posted... I use a NWS site that combines all of the reports in the region: http://www.erh.noaa....w&centeron=CTP# (which is one of two sources I use... the other being a COOP page).

There are reports of 1 or more inches in the Frostburg area (still on the low side, but again there was smoothing involved):

And not too far away, the wider scope of the storm emerges, with much higher totals within a short distance:

So, while the individual total was on the lower end, the much higher totals near it caused it to get smoothed out. I'm not going to spend 10 hours doing a regional verification map (which I do to provide a quick, direct comparison between that and my forecast).

And none of this comes back to the fact that you post a lot and have been reading about the weather for years but refuse to gain a deeper knowledge about what it is you're reading about.

I can and will admit that your nowcast/forecast call was better than mine with this system, even if it was partly for the wrong reasons.

If I were him, I'd say you got me and pass it on, because I agree with you Mitch. No reason why you can't nowcast a bit and extrapolate the radar imagery out a few hours, especially since even the short range models were having consistency troubles. As for your argument about the east based QBO, I don't really see the problem, he has no reason to tell you he's more right than you even if it may be another teleconnection. With that in mind, I find it a bit childish when someone doesn't admit to being wrong about a system. My map verified really well around and NW of the cities giving them not even T-1. In all honestly though, I feel like you have a grasp on the situation and its a shame you need to give this much effort just to show that you were right about the system. Regardless, good work, and ellinwood I know you are not really throwing missiles at him, but sometimes its good to just admit when you're wrong, it builds character and prepares for any failures that might come up in the future. Hope to see you two getting along next time snow is in the forecast.

Extrapolating out a few hours is fine (and out 3 hours is probably a good cut-off for such a thing). Extrapolating through the entire event is lunacy.

[usedtobe]

Ok settle down everyone, just enjoy the fine photo from Keyers Ridge Md

Wow, people sure get feisty when there is no snow on the horizon. I could have used a little more sun but it was a nice day outside. If I could have a boatload of days with the max temp in the 50s and 60s with one or two really nice snows, I'd be really pleased with winter. Cold air with no snow is the pits.

[TUweathermanDD]

Extrapolating out a few hours is fine (and out 3 hours is probably a good cut-off for such a thing). Extrapolating through the entire event is lunacy.

I agree, I mean he didn't do bad, you gotta give him credit. I could've told you 36 hours before the event the major cities weren't going to get an inch of snow, as much as I wanted it to happen, that didn't affect me putting out a snowless forecast.

[H2O]

Wow, people sure get feisty when there is no snow on the horizon. I could have used a little more sun but it was a nice day outside. If I could have a boatload of days with the max temp in the 50s and 60s with one or two really nice snows, I'd be really pleased with winter. Cold air with no snow is the pits.

Disagree. Cold keeps my dandelions from growing

[Ian]

At least Ellinwood tries to verify his forecast.. others completely sweep it under the rug when they're wrong even in part. This is a pretty tough area to forecast for and he's picked it up really fast which shows he knows what he is doing. I have no real problem with mitchnick but I do always find it weird how being weenie is so much more forgivable than being a 'serious' forecaster. There are people here who have been here for far too long to make the statements they do before every winter threat. To me that's more annoying than someone sometimes thinking they know it all.