Where we're at, where we're going

[okie333]

Thanks for your input, HM. However, I think you are overlooking some things.

1. What anecdotes are you referring to? We've been discussing statistics. Granted, no one knows for sure if the sun is responsible for all the blocking we've seen recently...but given the broader context of the last couple years and the timing of everything, it's hard to find a likelier suspect.

2. If one could have "just as easily" predicted this massive blocking based on terrestial factors, why haven't I seen that forecast? C'mon, really...who was expecting this sort of blocking? This will likely be one of the most -NAO Nov/Dec combos we have ever seen (unless the models are totally off their rocker for the next couple of weeks). That points to magnitude and persistence.

3. You have no comment on the strong correlations between early season blocking and blocking the remainder of the cold season?

Many of my posts on Eastern said there would be "extreme -AO/-NAO, possibly even stronger than last year's record-low values". I'm searching Accuweather at this moment to see if any of my posts there have the quote on them.

[tacoman25]

Many of my posts on Eastern said there would be "extreme -AO/-NAO, possibly even stronger than last year's record-low values". I'm searching Accuweather at this moment to see if any of my posts there have the quote on them.

I do recall your statements. You were certainly in the outlier camp in that regard. Time will tell.

[HM]

You guys are pushing me. I am not trying to back away from anything. Holy crap.

[HM]

I'm sorry HM, don't mean to upset you.

I think you have to admit you are surprised by the extent of the blocking being shown, however. You said we would have a warm-up mid-month and now all guidance is showing very cold temperatures with a strong -AO/-NAO block. It's not like a model fantasy either, this is going to happen in some form with the -30C 850mb temperatures over Hudson Bay moving southward behind the powerful system that is showing up on every run of every model. The 12z ECM has most of the Northeast approaching -20C at 850mb, which is not the warm-up you forecasted. I think it's OK to admit making a mistake here as the blocking is honestly fooling everyone...no one would have thought we could sustain last winter's levels of the AO/NAO given the strong La Niña.

I also don't see much possibility of a massive warm-up in the Plains with the combination of the NAO and how the GOA low seems to be evolving into more of a Rex block, different from the usual +EPO configuration. I think there'll be at least one more shot of brutally cold air into the Northern Plains and Upper Midwest after the arctic outbreak following the weekend system/cutter.

Yes but why does this make me a liar? My posts were never about verification, in fact they were quite the opposite...saying not to verify until it is over. All of a sudden I am distorting facts because I predicted a -EPO/NAO COMBO late Nov/early Dec and said the pacific would become unfavorable causing warming and that is wrong because GFS says so.

SO let me ask again...am I crazy? It is one thing to battle me on things like tacoman does with wx factors, and that's fine. Greater things come out of that. It is quite another to attack my credibility which Nik has done and you jumped on the bandwagon. Why don't you think about that.

[tacoman25]

It's so funny its like met winter comes around (Dec 1st) and the AO plummets

This is another thing about some of the solar climate studies that have been done. The conclusion was that the warm season was relatively unaffected by low solar activity, but the effect really came into play during winter months. There was a specific reason for that...can't remember right now.

[Ian]

Apparently.

not cool nik

[nynjpaweather]

It's doesn't matter what HM or anyone else said. I was right about everything. Now leave HM alone and come tangle with me. I can bench press all of you.

[nzucker]

It is only December 6th folks...plenty of time for temperature regimes, the AO/NAO, etc to change.

Still, have to say this is looking much more like an old style Niña (55-56 or 70-71) than the 99-00 brand.

[tacoman25]

It is only December 6th folks...plenty of time for temperature regimes, the AO/NAO, etc to change.

For sure. But since early blocking does favor more blocking later, odds would seem to favor a blocky winter overall at this point. Solar aside...those are just the statistics.

[Isotherm]

It's still early...but the evidence for solar-induced blocking is mounting. How else can we explain if we see a big -NAO strong La Nina following a huge -NAO strong El Nino?

Massive NH blocking signal shows no signs of letting up. I went with a weakly -NAO in my winter forecast, and I'm becoming convinced that this is going to be wrong and I'll be too warm for the eastern half of the nation.

Yeah, I definitely agree with HM that it's too early to verify, but often times the early December pattern provides a pretty solid clue as to the winter ahead. I went cold in the Northeast for December and January with February warming up. Although I like where we stand now, I could be wrong if the NAO dips negative at a different time (Feb instead of Jan).

Nothing in meteorology can be explained with one index, as everything is interconnected -- this is true. But with that said, there is little doubt in my mind that the solar factor is probably the primary driver in this extreme neg nao/ao episode.

[Nikolai]

not cool nik

I never attacked HM--he called me a dick and ripped into me for using hearsay etc when I all I was saying is that he had gone on record as saying December would turn warm by the middle of the month, and provided ample evidence of him doing so (and I still haven't attacked him even after he has gotten harsher). In the end this whole issue isn't terribly significant, it's just inconsistent.

I'm beginning to think you are just being a d--k to me. That's okay, it's hard adding anything useful to the table when all you have is hearsay

[HM]

I never attacked HM--he called me a dick and ripped into me for using hearsay etc when I all I was saying is that he had gone on record as saying December would turn warm by the middle of the month, and provided ample evidence of him doing so (and I still haven't attacked him even after he has gotten harsher). In the end this whole issue isn't terribly significant, it's just inconsistent.

Nice, let the backing out begin. You started this, so now it has been set. I think you have realized that in the very beginning you didn't read anything right.

I admit when I'm wrong every time and grade everything. And nothing will stop me after December is over. You clearly are a troll...no I'm sorry...the victim now.

[stormtracker]

Enough.

[Nikolai]

Nice, let the backing out begin. You started this, so now it has been set. I think you have realized that in the very beginning you didn't read anything right.

I admit when I'm wrong every time and grade everything. And nothing will stop me after December is over. You clearly are a troll...no I'm sorry...the victim now.

I never attacked you, I took issue with your statement.

People can read the past page themselves and decide who is right. I hope you have a good evening, HM.

[okie333]

I do recall your statements. You were certainly in the outlier camp in that regard. Time will tell.

I found everything I could on Accuweather.

http://forums.accuwe...34

http://forums.accuwe...48

http://forums.accuwe...92

http://forums.accuwe...46

http://forums.accuwe...15

http://forums.accuwe...90

http://forums.accuwe...0

I've found 5 analogs for next winter based on the NINO 3.4 Peak/DJF values and the JFM AO: 58-59, 66-67, 69-70, 77-78, and 87-88. This was based on every El Niño that had an AO -1.0 or lower.

Winter...Peak 3.4...DJF 3.4...JFM AO...Modoki?
09-10.......1.8.......1.7......-1.9......YES
57-58.......1.7.......1.7......-1.5......YES
65-66.......1.6.......1.2......-1.4......YES
68-69.......1.0.......1.0......-2.0......YES
76-77.......0.8.......0.6......-1.3......NO
86-87.......1.3.......1.2......-1.0......YES

58-59: Pros: Best match by far; even the graph of the trimonthly Niño progression matches up closely. Cons: None, except AO was slightly higher 57-58 than in 09-10.

66-67: Pros: Good Niño and AO match. Cons: AO slightly higher 65-66, Niño progression timetable does not match much at all.

69-70: Pros: Best AO match, OK Niño match. Cons: Niño not nearly as strong.

77-78: Pros: AO matches fairly well. Cons: Worst match of the bunch. Niño was very weak and not a Modoki, and AO was a bit on the high side.

87-88: Pros: Good Niño match, OK AO match. Cons: AO not as good of a match: only down to -1.0.

I looked at the Tulsa data for those analogs, and 3 of the 5 are in the top 10 for snow since 1950 (that is, the top sixth of the data). In addition, of the winters FOLLOWING the analogs, 4 of the 5 are in the top 10. That is, statistically there is a 92% chance that one of the two next winters will be a top-10 for Tulsa, and 48% chance that BOTH will be. Also, of all those 10 years (next year's analogs and the years after them), only 1 had a positive DJF anomaly, and that one was only 0.3 degrees above average. Two of the 10 were the two coldest winters ever. In every case the analog year was colder than the year before ("year before" being the 09-10 representative), and in all but one case it was snowier. In all but one case the winter AFTER the analog was colder and snowier than the year before the analog. Considering 2009-2010 was one of the coldest, snowiest winters in Tulsa, I can only imagine what 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 will be like.

Oh, and for those of you in the Central/Southern Plains:

Tulsa, OK, snowfall (average: 9.1"):

58-59: 19.5"

66-67: 5.8"

69-70: 20.4"

77-78: 11.7"

87-88: 18.2"

10-11: ???

All of them, save for 66-67, were snowier than the winter before

YEARS AFTER:

59-60: 19.4"

67-68: 17.0"

70-71: 6.5"

78-79: 18.9"

88-89: 16.5"

11-12: ???

Every one of these, except 70-71, was snowier than the pre-analog winter. Red years were in the top 10 in terms of snowfall for the 50/51-09/10 period.

TEMPERATURES (average: 39.5):

58-59: 37.3

66-67: 38.6

69-70: 36.8

77-78: 31.2

87-88: 38.5

10-11: ???

All colder than the corresponding pre-analog winter. 77-78 was 2nd coldest ever.

59-60: 36.0

67-68: 37.6

70-71: 39.3

78-79: 30.4

88-89: 39.8

11-12: ???

All but 70-71 colder than pre-analog winter. 78-79 coldest winter ever.

PRE-ANALOG YEARS:

Year Snow Temp

57-58 17.2 40.1

65-66 9.4 39.6

68-69 8.0 38.3

76-77 11.3 36.5

86-87 13.3 40.3

09-10 22.8 34.8

And I'm in the exact correct location on the yellow storm track in the video on the site (WeatherAdvance's first prediction). The words for the gray area (including Tulsa) on the map in the video are "Colder than average. A few more snows than average." Just so happens I agree with that forecast in more ways than one.

Most of the forecasts I've seen, including the one from Accuweather's own Joe Bastardi, have predicted that 2010-2011 will be miserable for my area and the rest of the South and Central US. However, I do not agree with that. EVEN IF THIS DOES TURN OUT TO BE A LA NINA (a big if), it will still be colder than average for Tulsa, since as far as the ENSO goes, all that matters for the winter temperatures here is whether the Nino 4 (west) or Nino 1+2 (east) is warmer. West warm, good winter. East warm, bad winter. IN ADDITION, the ENSO/TNI is not all that matters. The AO/NAO matters too (particularly during ENSO-neutral years), and it has recently entered a (in my opinion) solar-induced decadal negative period. Also, you cannot forget the statistics for winters following ones like the last (particularly 57-58/58-59/59-60, which is both my top analog for 09-10/10-11/11-12 and also by far the snowiest 3-year period in Tulsa's history). To recap, the ENSO is not the only pattern that affects the weather on a yearly basis.

1957-1958 is the best match for THIS LAST WINTER. 1958-1959 is thus the best analog for the upcoming winter.

All 2010-2011 analogs:

1958-1959 only:

THE FOLLOWING MAP IS A QUICK GUESS AT POSSIBLE 2011-2012 ANALOGS AND IS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED IN ANY WAY AS BEING RELATED TO THE 2010-2011 WINTER SEASON

YEARS AFTER ANALOGS:

The "other small differences" include the anomalies in the Atlantic. I believe that this will be key to forecasting the winter in the United States. The correlations with that anomaly show that the winter will likely have a negative AO and NAO, and they show it very strongly so. The low solar activity agrees with this, as the vast majority of low solar years have had -AO/-NAO winters following. So far the sunspot number has only been half of the low-solar-cycle threshold. Call me crazy, but I think there is a chance that this winter may end up with more of a negative AO/NAO than last winter. Regardless of whether it goes this low, I think it is a safe bet to say the AO and NAO will average negative this winter.

Maps 1 and 3 are MJJ SST's, maps 2 and 4 are the correlations with the DJF NAO. Basic primer on correlations: If maps 1 and 2 look alike and maps 3 and 4 look alike, expect a +NAO this winter. If maps 1 and 2 look opposite and maps 3 and 4 look opposite, expect a -NAO this winter. Note that 2009-2010 was an exception to this rule, but there were some definite wildcards that influenced the index negatively (these wildcards will likely affect the index negatively this year too, but not quite as much influence... still, expect a --NAO this winter, possibly similar to last in intensity).

[tacoman25]

Nice, let the backing out begin. You started this, so now it has been set. I think you have realized that in the very beginning you didn't read anything right.

I admit when I'm wrong every time and grade everything. And nothing will stop me after December is over. You clearly are a troll...no I'm sorry...the victim now.

He probably could have presented it better....but I do think Nikolai had a valid point about the first half of this month. It's clear that you (and most others for that matter) originally did not expect the blocking to hang on this long or be this strong. Nothing wrong with that; like you said, it rarely makes sense to forecast something this extreme.

[HM]

I never attacked you, I took issue with your statement.

People can read the past page themselves and decide who is right. I hope you have a good evening, HM.

All I said was that I predicted the -NAO from October for late Nov/early Dec which has verified. In your head, you took it to mean..."HM is a liar, -NAO til xmas, models say so, he is trying to back away from that etc." ....that is called an attack. When you say things like that, you're basically saying liar. And on top of everything else, you quoted something about storms that had nothing to do with the winter call. Heather A signals are notorious for storms and Dec 5th was showing up on the models, which is turning out to be fun in Maine right now. There is no decision being made man. This is compete lunacy you made up in your head.

The point was to say, other signals were coming in from the Earth that suggested a -EPO/NAO signal around this time and that we can't just say solar.

[earthlight]

Apparently.

[/size][/font][/size][/font]I am not attacking you--I just don't think you should be taking credit for forecasting a -NAO for mid-December when you have explicitly stated the opposite previously. Perhaps there is some miscommunication on your end.

I really, really don't understand your point. The presentation of your argument is not very fair. I'm all for argument, that's what good and solid debate is about. But from the quotes you referenced, you didn't really back yourself up very well. HM definitely predicted the NAO through early December. I'm going to guess that's why HM was ticked off, which he has every right to be.

[HM]

He probably could have presented it better....but I do think Nikolai had a valid point about the first half of this month. It's clear that you (and most others for that matter) originally did not expect the blocking to hang on this long or be this strong. Nothing wrong with that; like you said, it rarely makes sense to forecast something this extreme.

Yes but that is your point. Don't give him a way out man.

[Nikolai]

I really, really don't understand your point. The presentation of your argument is not very fair. I'm all for argument, that's what good and solid debate is about. But from the quotes you referenced, you didn't really back yourself up very well. HM definitely predicted the NAO through early December. I'm going to guess that's why HM was ticked off, which he has every right to be.

Yes, he did predict the early December -NAO, but not the mid-month occurrence, which looks much more impressive than what we currently have. That is what I've taken issue with--I know it's confusing etc, but I took his statement earlier to mean that he was taking credit for predicting an extended -NAO period through mid-month, which he did not. I may have misunderstood as well--but that's what I thought happened.

[HM]

Yes, he did predict the early December -NAO, but not the mid-month occurrence, which looks much more impressive than what we currently have. That is what I've taken issue with--I know it's confusing etc, but I took his statement earlier to mean that he was taking credit for predicting an extended -NAO period through mid-month, which he did not. I may have misunderstood as well--but that's what I thought happened.

It didn't happen. I wasn't trying to take credit for a long range model solution of a -NAO, which if happens I would be wrong about. I was just trying to start up a classic tacoman debate. As for the temp prediction, I still think that has a shot, even if I'm wrong about the NAO and it just stays negative the whole time. Now do you see why I got angry?

You were trying to prove me wrong about what the models are showing in the extended over a statement that didn't even have to do with mid Dec. haha, that is so twisted that I thought I was on another planet, hence the crazy statement.

All is forgiven, we're cool...

[tacoman25]

Yes but that is your point. Don't give him a way out man.

Well, I think his issue was the way you presented it as "everything going to plan"...I'm not sure that's an entirely accurate portrayal, but that's how it came across.

It is an important distinction to make between your October comments (which look to be generally correct) and more recent ones. But it does appear that your more recent thoughts were too hasty in getting rid of the ongoing blocking. And I think that was Nikolai's point all along.

[HM]

Well, I think his issue was the way you presented it as "everything going to plan"...I'm not sure that's an entirely accurate portrayal, but that's how it came across.

It is an important distinction to make between your October comments (which look to be generally correct) and more recent ones. But it does appear that your more recent thoughts were too hasty in getting rid of the ongoing blocking. And I think that was Nikolai's point all along.

Yeah except it was in response to you about this being about solar. My point is that I used other things that also showed a -NAO and that ended up being correct, so far. The MJO is also going to be correct but I likely ended the -NAO too soon. Either way, it clearly isn't his point because he just admitted that he thought I was taking credit for a modeled -NAO in mid Dec. when I wasn't at all. I have a theory, solar-related, for why this NAO is stronger than normal and why I was too short with its duration but we haven't gotten there yet because things derailed.

In fact, the only time I mentioned mid dec was when I talked about the fun battle that looks to be coming up on the models between the MJO/pacific and the Atlantic and I said I think the NAO ultimately loses. My monthly call was probably too fast but we can't verify that until things are over anyway.

[HM]

And while it is an honor that you think that if I didn't see something in the long range, it must be important (just to be clear, i was trying to be funny and sarcastic...wouldn't want to be called arrogant next haha); but, me screwing up the duration of the NAO block doesn't make the solar argument any better or worse. Regardless of what a forecaster does or does not, I have seen impressive blocks with different solar regimes. You aren't proving this episode to be solar related in that sense. My error means nothing.

[AfewUniversesBelowNormal]

If the 18z GFS ensembles verify, this could make a run at the most -NAO period on record!

10 Days away, and the ensemble mean is forecasting a >50dm anomaly! I've never seen this before.

By the way.. HM was all over a -NAO December. We have discussed the idea a lot in the past few months, and there is stuff on eastern that supports this. I wish certain people would stick to discussing science, and not dwell on he said/she said arguments. It's irrelevant and a waste of time.

[CoastalWx]

We'll be back to farming in Greenland if this keeps up.

[tacoman25]

By the way.. HM was all over a -NAO December. We have discussed the idea a lot in the past few months, and there is stuff on eastern that supports this. I wish certain people would stick to discussing science, and not dwell on he said/she said arguments. It's irrelevant and a waste of time.

This statement is completely contradictory. You give your take on what HM said previously, and then immediately say "he said/she said" is irrelevant and a waste of time. Why contribute to it then?

Instead, how about responding to some of the science that has been presented in this thread?

[Damage In Tolland]

If the 18z GFS ensembles verify, this could make a run at the most -NAO period on record!

10 Days away, and the ensemble mean is forecasting a >50dm anomaly! I've never seen this before.

By the way.. HM was all over a -NAO December. We have discussed the idea a lot in the past few months, and there is stuff on eastern that supports this. I wish certain people would stick to discussing science, and not dwell on he said/she said arguments. It's irrelevant and a waste of time.

Where is your winter forecast?

[usedtobe]

If the 18z GFS ensembles verify, this could make a run at the most -NAO period on record!

10 Days away, and the ensemble mean is forecasting a >50dm anomaly! I've never seen this before.

By the way.. HM was all over a -NAO December. We have discussed the idea a lot in the past few months, and there is stuff on eastern that supports this. I wish certain people would stick to discussing science, and not dwell on he said/she said arguments. It's irrelevant and a waste of time.

It's still not a good look for the mid atlantic.

[easternsnowman]

Anytime we have cold it's good, it at least gives us a chance. Of course the suburbs with elevation have better chances with snow in this pattern.