D6 event....blizzard, flizzard, rain, or partly cloudy?

[HIPPYVALLEY]

If this materializes it is w/i a day of the full moon. Could be interesting on the coast.

Are astro-meteorological algorithms accounted for by the models?

[ORH_wxman]

If this materializes it is w/i a day of the full moon. Could be interesting on the coast.

Are astro-meteorological algorithms accounted for by the models?

The latter stages of the storm could fall on the full moon which is the 21st...so yeah, this is basically a Ginx moon fetish storm.

[Ginx snewx]

While I agree in principal, one can't deviate from science on a hunch although in wx I supposed you can. I certainly can't and SHOULD NOT EVER in my world if I don't have reasonably sound science behind me.

Solar influence on weather is now an accepted principal, five years a go it was called a hunch. Science based ideas are not hunches, do not know why you think it was / Is a hunch.

[weatherwiz]

Here is a list of -AO's during a La Nina with a monthly reading of -1.8 or lower

What we have right now:

[Ginx snewx]

If this materializes it is w/i a day of the full moon. Could be interesting on the coast.

Are astro-meteorological algorithms accounted for by the models?

Tides are not unusually high but an extended fetch could cause some issues for North Shore areas.

[ORH_wxman]

Here is a list of -AO's during a La Nina with a monthly reading of -1.8 or lower

What we have right now:

We're beginning to stray off topic here, but that is not correct....1995 and 2000 did not have monthly readings -1.8C or lower. Dec 2000 and Dec 1995 weren't even -1.0C

[weathafella]

Solar influence on weather is now an accepted principal, five years a go it was called a hunch. Science based ideas are not hunches, do not know why you think it was / Is a hunch.

I agree. But hunches I may have must be proven by sound science or more often than not someone will be hurt. It's different in the physical sciences but still needs to be proved. While many scientists still scoff at the sun influence and it is certainly not definitively proven, it is acceptable to advance this theoy in a science filled with chaos. Mine's more concrete so the rules are different.

[weatherwiz]

We're beginning to stray off topic here, but that is not correct....1995 and 2000 did not have monthly readings -1.8C or lower. Dec 2000 and Dec 1995 weren't even -1.0C

I got Dec 1995 AO of -2.,127 and 2000 of -2.354

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/ao.data

[weathafella]

I always had issues with data which does not include decadal signals.

A good example of the value of science. Tripling or quadrupling the sample size would make the data way more reliable.

[weathafella]

I got Dec 1995 AO of -2.,127 and 2000 of -2.354

http://www.esrl.noaa...elation/ao.data

Lay off the sauce Paul.....lol...

[DomNH]

It's now time for everyone's favorite thing to do during threats...extrapolate the NAM.

[ORH_wxman]

I got Dec 1995 AO of -2.,127 and 2000 of -2.354

http://www.esrl.noaa...elation/ao.data

I thought you were talking about the ENSO 3.4 reading

[CoastalWx]

I got Dec 1995 AO of -2.,127 and 2000 of -2.354

http://www.esrl.noaa...elation/ao.data

Apples to oranges. The AO is an index value, not a value in degree C.

[weatherwiz]

Lay off the sauce Paul.....lol...

I thought you were talking about the ENSO 3.4 reading

Ohhh ok...you scared me

Ok sorry for the OT. I'll just make a different thread for the AO stuff...it's quite interesting.

[NCSnowstorm]

That is an EXCELLENT question...if we look at recent years MJO, they would argue for NO storm right now...I hope you get a response on this because I am curious as well

Here is a question I have....and I think it has some validity. All the MJO composites are from 1974 onward. So, what did the MJO composites look like during the -nao phase? One has to wonder if they would look different during the 50s and 60s.

[nzucker]

You'll need a pretty large adjustment westward on the phase if you get a scenario where interior SNE changes to rain.

The Ukie basically split and dropped the PV into the southern stream and still didn't produce that much qpf for your area....while the low tracked from the BM NNW into S ME and dumped like 2 feet of snow on BOS even.

I actually think we'd get more QPF in the NYC metro if the18z GFS track verifies; with the low stalling out inside the benchmark, I'd probably get close to 30" snow. Not saying that's going to happen of course, but I just think there's a lot of potential for a westward shift if the southern shortwave trends stronger and goes negative, or if we get a full PV phase. Some of the 12z GFS ENS members drove the low pressure up the Hudson River and even changed me over to rain. I'm pretty comfortable where I'm sitting prior to this storm; this looks like a carbon copy of 12/19 last year almost. I am still very concerned about the out to sea solution that the ECM has showed in a steadfast manner, but I think if this thing phases properly, we get drilled.

I agree with all these points. Hence my 12/30/00 fears despite the reassurances.

I am still more worried about out to sea but as I said, the guidance could trend westward easily at 0z tonight or 12z tomorrow...plenty of room for it to hug the coast with a better phase and more PV involvement.

[DomNH]

MJO discussion might be about as interesting as June severe threads.

[Ginx snewx]

I agree. But hunches I may have must be proven by sound science or more often than not someone will be hurt. It's different in the physical sciences but still needs to be proved. While many scientists still scoff at the sun influence and it is certainly not definitively proven, it is acceptable to advance this theoy in a science filled with chaos. Mine's more concrete so the rules are different.

I had a hunch you would say that. LOL

[OKpowdah]

looking through hr54, NAM looks like it'll be east

[CT Rain]

That is an EXCELLENT question...if we look at recent years MJO, they would argue for NO storm right now...I hope you get a response on this because I am curious as well

I think the MJO is worthwhile to use in the absence of other strong signals. With a ripping -NAO and -AO... I'm not really going to look too much at the IO/W Pac for forcing when for us the big driver is just north or northeast of us.

Also as is typical of a strong Nina we're dealing with a low amplitude MJO wave so forcing should be less than ripping a monster MJO.

[weathafella]

I had a hunch you would say that. LOL

I have a big enough sample size for you to cull from.....

[weathafella]

0Z first impression (NAM) says 18Z is horsepucky.

[ineedsnow]

nam looks like it would be wide right so far!

[OKpowdah]

not looking too good

[DomNH]

Yeah, a lot less amplified at H5 than 18z.

[CoastalWx]

I think the MJO is worthwhile to use in the absence of other strong signals. With a ripping -NAO and -AO... I'm not really going to look too much at the IO/W Pac for forcing when for us the big driver is just north or northeast of us.

Also as is typical of a strong Nina we're dealing with a low amplitude MJO wave so forcing should be less than ripping a monster MJO.

Yeah MJO has been in the pooper lately. Doesn't look like it wants to do much either.

[CoastalWx]

Yeah, a lot less amplified at H5 than 18z.

Can we have a rule about extrapolating what the NAM will do, post 84 hrs?

[Bostonseminole]

this NAM talk needs to stop

[Logan11]

We're in the 120 hour time frame before the event and the GFS is a pretty good hit even to ENY. IIRC the GFS is usually losing these lows too far east in this time frame so that is fairly telling. Be interesting to see if the GFS loses it at 0Z because it is uncharacteristic for it to be the most aggressive model at this juncture.

[DomNH]

Can we have a rule about extrapolating what the NAM will do, post 84 hrs?

Lol, I don't think anyone particularly cares what it shows...it's better than harassing Carl Crawford on Twitter.