The 2013-2014 Winter Outlook Thread

[1300m]

The problem is, this October hasn't been cold.

Last year we have a cold end to October, very cold November, and it stayed warm until March.

1989 was a white Christmas down here and in a lot of rare places.

 

That's because there is no science to base that on. The Siberian snowfall theory is based in science, and there are places on the internet that do a fabulous job of explaining how that translates.

 

I've even heard meteorologists say things like "we're using up all the good patterns in fall" which is totally laughable to me. The truth is, in a neutral ENSO winter we really don't have a lot to go on until we see how the AO is going to shape up, and then we see how the PNA and NAO are evolving. Last winter, the NAO was basically neutral all winter and so unsurprisingly with little other forcing, we had a pretty benign year here in the southeast. That could happen again, but hopefully the NAO will flex it's muscle more this winter and better things will come.

[FallsLake]

The problem is, this October hasn't been cold.

Last year we have a cold end to October, very cold November, and it stayed warm until March.

1989 was a white Christmas down here and in a lot of rare places.

October has been warm so far but if the LR models are correct we could turn to a cold pattern by mid-month. Cold enough maybe to even make up for the warm start. Last year's cold November (and then warm winter) goes right along with this thought.

 

My hope: We switch to a cold pattern by mid October, switch back to a warm pattern in early November, and then switch back cold at or after Thanksgiving.   **again I don't have any stats to back up this up; just memories from past years.

[WxJordan]

That's because there is no science to base that on. The Siberian snowfall theory is based in science, and there are places on the internet that do a fabulous job of explaining how that translates.

 

I've even heard meteorologists say things like "we're using up all the good patterns in fall" which is totally laughable to me. The truth is, in a neutral ENSO winter we really don't have a lot to go on until we see how the AO is going to shape up, and then we see how the PNA and NAO are evolving. Last winter, the NAO was basically neutral all winter and so unsurprisingly with little other forcing, we had a pretty benign year here in the southeast. That could happen again, but hopefully the NAO will flex it's muscle more this winter and better things will come.

I completely agree with you. I believe the AO really does not start becoming a major factor until in November, which will then begin to impact the NAO in return. We are just now starting to see the signs of the Arctic Oscillation beginning to emerge again, so I agree it is laughable to say we are using up all the patterns early.

[1300m]

I completely agree with you. I believe the AO really does not start becoming a major factor until in November, which will then begin to impact the NAO in return. We are just now starting to see the signs of the Arctic Oscillation beginning to emerge again, so I agree it is laughable to say we are using up all the patterns early.

 

Exactly. I really think any fall pattern correlation is most likely just coincidence. I actually heard the using patterns up statement from a NWS meteorologist - I politely just said we'll have to agree to disagree on that one

[Cold Rain]

Kind of off topic, but it does pertain to forecasting. Do you like the probability model that I used to develop the forecast? I felt like it would be appropriate to incorporate the probability of above average, below average, or average snow and temperatures. I felt like it made sense to me, but I was worried that the public would not be able to understand what that means. I also felt that it was important to show the different oscillations that we use to forecast, to help prove that there was a logical reason behind the forecast.

I am excited about the challenges this upcoming winter will bring forecasting, because I feel like it will be a challenge as it is every year and not as simple as the past few winters.

 

I finally got a chance to watch your video.  Good job.  Keep up the good work!  Regarding probability forecasting, I like it.  I think it's a better way to go (with most aspects of forecasting: winter -- temps/snowfall, rain, landfalling tropical systems, wind, etc).  If you put "above normal snowfall" over someone's house, then they assume they'll have above normal snowfall and will consider the forecast a bust if it doesn't happen.  If you put 60% chance of above normal snowfall over someone's house, they at least will think, if not but for a split second, that there's a 40% chance they won't have above normal snowfall...assuming they can add.

 

They have reasoning on their website but it is no more reliable than anyone else's...I always love the "proprietary statistical technique" reason! No one drives web traffic by going for average or warmer than normal winters.

 

Year after year after year, the majority of winter forecasts call for above average snow and below average temps over the northern and eastern part of the country (generally).  Very few go warm.  I won't put out a winter forecast, but my opinion is that we'll probably see what we've been seeing:  Average (cough, cough) or below snowfall and temps just either side of normal (above more likely for winter as a whole), with cold shots here and there.  For whatever reason, that's been the predominant pattern for years, with the occasional exception.  Brutally cold and snowy winters are not the norm these days.  And until we start to see compelling evidence that that type of pattern is returning, normal/above temps and normal/below snowfall is the way to go, IMO.

[Bevo]

The Gulf of Alaska and PAC.  At this point, I care nothing for any other index - I just want to know what that Warhammer will do this year. *See last two winters*

[calculus1]

The Gulf of Alaska and PAC.  At this point, I care nothing for any other index - I just want to know what that Warhammer will do this year. *See last two winters*

 

Bollocks!!     (Actually, you do have a point...)

 

Bevo, my man!  Welcome back from the long summer sabbatical!

[1300m]

The Gulf of Alaska and PAC.  At this point, I care nothing for any other index - I just want to know what that Warhammer will do this year. *See last two winters*

 

The lack of a negative NAO was the real culprit these last two winters, and the reason why some tried to blame the Pacific. Research has shown that the NAO has the most direct effect on eastern US winter temperatures and precipitation, and it's lack of presence is the reason why the Pacific was able to influence our weather.

 

For evidence, just think back to as soon as the NAO tanked in March this year and what happened.

[Bevo]

Bollocks!!     (Actually, you do have a point...)

 

Bevo, my man!  Welcome back from the long summer sabbatical!

 

Good to be back - the summer just friggin' zipped by.

 

I think you're missing the point - the lack of a negative NAO was the real culprit these last two winters. As soon as the NAO tanked in March what happened?

 

Holy geez - it's starting already.  There were many instances of blocking - not just in March.  The PAC was THE dominant reason for the woes.  Regardless of the blocking, everything in the stream was punished and sent on it's way. 

[1300m]

Good to be back - the summer just friggin' zipped by.

 

 

Holy geez - it's starting already.  There were many instances of blocking - not just in March.  The PAC was THE dominant reason for the woes.  Regardless of the blocking, everything in the stream was punished and sent on it's way. 

 

Holy geez, look at this table and then recant: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table.

 

P.S. The Pacific was not THE reason for the woes, it was the lack of a true negative NAO. 

[Cold Rain]

Holy geez, look at this table and then recant: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table.

 

P.S. The Pacific was not THE reason for the woes, it was the lack of a true negative NAO. 

 

This presents a good time for a reminder that just because the index has a certain sign in front of it does not mean it's optimally configured to deliver the desired result.  There were bouts of -NAO last winter (and the AO was negative a lot), but a lot of it was east-based, if I remember correctly.  I don't recall strong, west-based or Greenland Block-style -NAO last winter (which I believe you concur with), which is what is most helpful for us.  Not saying what you said about the Pacific vs. NAO is untrue, but just thought it was a good opportunity to point out that we should remember to take a look at the configuration of the pattern vs. just looking at whether it might be positive or negative.

 

If the Pacific is really bad, it seems like it would take a really strong and optimally placed -NAO/block to negate it.  And if the Pacific remains really bad, it would seem like you'd need that block to remain for an abnormally long time, or you'd be back to crap again.  However, if the Pacific is not as bad (or even, gasp, good), then you might not have to have such an impressive Atlantic.  Thoughts?

 

Regarding last year's Pacific, it WAS a very big problem.  My question is, does a terrible Pacific have any bearing on the establishment and/or frequency of a west-based -NAO?  Or are they completely independent?  I don't know.  Just throwing it out there.

 

By the way, good to see you, Bevo!

[Bevo]

Holy geez, look at this table and then recant: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table.

 

Firstly - Have you been with us for a while and changed your name?  Or are you a new contributor (which is great by the way - and welcome)? Because to start out this way as an introduction to me is bollocks.

 

Secondly - you seem to be under the impression that I wanted to argue atmospheric cause and effect, when in fact I simply made a personal statement as to what I am looking for.  I did not solicit for stats and charts or other indices (on the contrary actually - I thought it was pretty clear that I had no use nor desire for them).  This is a tired debate that has been beaten to death here over the last two years, and I have enough knowledge and experience to warrant my own reasons for choosing my criteria.  What I said, verbatim:

 

"The Gulf of Alaska and PAC.  At this point, I care nothing for any other index - I just want to know what that Warhammer will do this year. *See last two winters*"

 

Now, even though I feel no responsibility to explain my own rationale, since you were kind enough to throw a page full of numbers and decimals at me, I'll at least return the favor in my own, "non-scientifical-without-statisticals" way...

 

Over the course of the last two winters, there have been several blocking "episodes" with no result, in conjunction with a hyper-active PAC.  Therefore, it stands to reason that with both factors in play at the same time, the PAC has been more efficient in influencing winter weather here in the SE.  I was not alone in concluding that during winters of such Pacific dominance, our usual indices seemed flawed and not as trustworthy (they are, in fact flawed, regardless).  Emphasis on the last two winters.

 

Lastly, Welcome to the boards! I hope you enjoy your time here and we look forward to your weather enthusiasm and knowledge.  It is a fun and friendly community (for the most part).

[Bevo]

This presents a good time for a reminder that just because the index has a certain sign in front of it does not mean it's optimally configured to deliver the desired result.  There were bouts of -NAO last winter (and the AO was negative a lot), but a lot of it was east-based, if I remember correctly.  I don't recall strong, west-based or Greenland Block-style -NAO last winter (which I believe you concur with), which is what is most helpful for us.  Not saying what you said about the Pacific vs. NAO is untrue, but just thought it was a good opportunity to point out that we should remember to take a look at the configuration of the pattern vs. just looking at whether it might be positive or negative.

 

If the Pacific is really bad, it seems like it would take a really strong and optimally placed -NAO/block to negate it.  And if the Pacific remains really bad, it would seem like you'd need that block to remain for an abnormally long time, or you'd be back to crap again.  However, if the Pacific is not as bad (or even, gasp, good), then you might not have to have such an impressive Atlantic.  Thoughts?

 

Regarding last year's Pacific, it WAS a very big problem.  My question is, does a terrible Pacific have any bearing on the establishment and/or frequency of a west-based -NAO?  Or are they completely independent?  I don't know.  Just throwing it out there.

 

By the way, good to see you, Bevo!

 

 

I thought it was time to come back inside - it was a shooooort and non-brutal summer! 

[1300m]

Firstly - Have you been with us for a while and changed your name?  Or are you a new contributor (which is great by the way - and welcome)? Because to start out this way as an introduction to me is bollocks.

 

Secondly - you seem to be under the impression that I wanted to argue atmospheric cause and effect, when in fact I simply made a personal statement as to what I am looking for.  I did not solicit for stats and charts or other indices (on the contrary actually - I thought it was pretty clear that I had no use nor desire for them).  This is a tired debate that has been beaten to death here over the last two years, and I have enough knowledge and experience to warrant my own reasons for choosing my criteria.  What I said, verbatim:

 

"The Gulf of Alaska and PAC.  At this point, I care nothing for any other index - I just want to know what that Warhammer will do this year. *See last two winters*"

 

Now, even though I feel no responsibility to explain my own rationale, since you were kind enough to throw a page full of numbers and decimals at me, I'll at least return the favor in my own, "non-scientifical-without-statisticals" way...

 

Over the course of the last two winters, there have been several blocking "episodes" with no result, in conjunction with a hyper-active PAC.  Therefore, it stands to reason that with both factors in play at the same time, the PAC has been more efficient in influencing winter weather here in the SE.  I was not alone in concluding that during winters of such Pacific dominance, our usual indices seemed flawed and not as trustworthy (they are, in fact flawed, regardless).  Emphasis on the last two winters.

 

Lastly, Welcome to the boards! I hope you enjoy your time here and we look forward to your weather enthusiasm and knowledge.  It is a fun and friendly community (for the most part).

 

Not sure what you mean by bollocks? I'm just a weather enthusiast who recently moved but has followed eastern US weather for a long time. My main point in contesting what you said is that there was never truly a negative west-based NAO last winter. 

 

What I don't understand is why everyone keeps saying the Pacific was a problem - don't we want an active Pacific to provide storms? If we have an established west based negative NAO, wouldn't that provide the confluence for high pressure systems over the northeast along with upper level suppression to keep the active southern stream in a favorable position for the southeast? 

 

What entails a "good Pacific"? If it isn't active, then we would struggle to get any significant shortwave energy and certainly wouldn't have any phasing opportunities with a split flow.

 

Thanks for the welcome, and here's to hoping that this monotonous weather pattern will turn to winter excitement!

[Cold Rain]

I thought it was time to come back inside - it was a shooooort and non-brutal summer! 

 

Yes sir.  This was one of the most tolerable summers I can ever remember.

 

One other thing I was thinking about, the cold air spent an awful lot of time on the other side of the globe last year.  So even with a strong -NAO to counter the flooding warm air Pacific train, it would have been hard to get that cold.  My belief is that you can't *always* weight one index as the most important because there are so many different variables that play off of each other.  I'm with you in that I think the pacific has played the biggest role over the past couple of years.  The -NAO might correlate the best statistically for winter weather around here, all things being equal, but things are not often equal these days.

[Cold Rain]

Not sure what you mean by bollocks? I'm just a weather enthusiast who recently moved but has followed eastern US weather for a long time. My main point in contesting what you said is that there was never truly a negative west-based NAO last winter. 

 

What I don't understand is why everyone keeps saying the Pacific was a problem - don't we want an active Pacific to provide storms? If we have an established west based negative NAO, wouldn't that provide the confluence for high pressure systems over the northeast along with upper level suppression to keep the active southern stream in a favorable position for the southeast? 

 

What entails a "good Pacific"? If it isn't active, then we would struggle to get any significant shortwave energy and certainly wouldn't have any phasing opportunities with a split flow.

 

Thanks for the welcome, and here's to hoping that this monotonous weather pattern will turn to winter excitement!

 

It might be a matter of semantics.  An active Pacific, providing energy, is not a bad thing.  But a big time Pacific jet, a big time vortex in the Gulf of Alaska, and a big time -PNA are fairly atrocious.  If you have warm air flooding southern Canada and the US, then where does the cold air come from, even if you have a good west-based -NAO, especially if it's bottled up on the other side of the globe?  We saw a lot of that last year, and we even had some transient blocking, but we never really got any really good cold shots.  Now, the Pacific isn't always going to be THAT bad, so in a sense, even when it is just BAD and not terrible, depending on other factors in the atmosphere, a -NAO is going to help more.  Either way, I'll take a -NAO over a +NAO any day of the week, even with a bad Pacific, because there are other things that can work alongside the -NAO to help deliver cold in here.  I know that's kinda vague though....

[Cold Rain]

What's up, Stovepipe?  I see you lurking.  How'd that TN summer treat you?

[mackerel_sky]

Last winter was whack! I saw both of my snow "events" with temps in the low 40s! The one day it stayed in the 20s , we received like.006 inches of precip. Yes , every October , hope springs eternal for the best winter ever, or atleast a few storms to track.

[metalicwx366]

I thought it was time to come back inside - it was a long and super humid summer!

FYP

[burgertime]

Firstly - Have you been with us for a while and changed your name?  Or are you a new contributor (which is great by the way - and welcome)? Because to start out this way as an introduction to me is bollocks.

 

 

 

I think we all know who this could be. 

[Bevo]

FYP

 

Ha! I'm sure the center of Hell was a little stuffy for you. I will say that the humidity was high, but it tends to do that when it's freaking raining every day.

[burgertime]

Just to add to the conversation I thought the bigger problem was lack of a combined +PNA and -NAO...it seemed like we would always have one without the other. Doesn't a -PNA effect the flow from the Pacific or am I just talking out of my arse? 

[Bevo]

I think we all know who this could be. 

 

I wasn't going to say anything yet...but there's no denying that the thought crossed my mind.

[1300m]

I think we all know who this could be. 

 

 

I wasn't going to say anything yet...but there's no denying that the thought crossed my mind.

 

Who might I be? I must say, I don't know what I have done to cause such a stir. I thought this was the 2013-14 winter outlook thread , so shoot me for talking weather and offering up a discussion.

 

I have no clue what bollocks means, but I think both of you may be full of it (or them?). 

[metalicwx366]

That's because there is no science to base that on. The Siberian snowfall theory is based in science, and there are places on the internet that do a fabulous job of explaining how that translates.

I've even heard meteorologists say things like "we're using up all the good patterns in fall" which is totally laughable to me. The truth is, in a neutral ENSO winter we really don't have a lot to go on until we see how the AO is going to shape up, and then we see how the PNA and NAO are evolving. Last winter, the NAO was basically neutral all winter and so unsurprisingly with little other forcing, we had a pretty benign year here in the southeast. That could happen again, but hopefully the NAO will flex it's muscle more this winter and better things will come.

I know there is no science behind that. Also I would like to see more into this Siberian snowfall theory. I don't think it worked out well last year.

I wonder if there is any correlation between hurricane season and winter. This year was pitiful, 2009 was as well.

[Bevo]

Who might I be? I must say, I don't know what I have done to cause such a stir. I thought this was the 2013-14 winter outlook thread , so shoot me for talking weather and offering up a discussion.

 

I have no clue what bollocks means, but I think both of you may be full of it (or them?). 

 

Oh relax.

 

And to answer your question, "bollocks" is my way of saying bull feces that passes the censors.  Watch a few Guy Ritchie films for further study.

 

Now although I can't answer for burger, I am undoubtedly filled with it.

 

metallica - I thought there had been some examination of that hurricane season/winter relationship, but I cannot tell you where to find it. Largely because I kept running into climate change arguments instead of actual discussions or findings, so I quit looking.

[1300m]

I know there is no science behind that. Also I would like to see more into this Siberian snowfall theory. I don't think it worked out well last year.

I wonder if there is any correlation between hurricane season and winter. This year was pitiful, 2009 was as well.

 

The Siberian connection worked out ok last year - the AO was negative for a majority of the winter, and March was actually the 5th most negative month ever recorded for the AO.

 

In regards to the hurricane season I'm not sure, I'd imagine any connection would largely be tied to ENSO, and I'd actually think that more activity (which is typical in a La Nina regime) would result in warmer and drier winters in the southeast and vice versa.

 

 

And to answer your question, "bollocks" is my way of saying bull feces that passes the censors.  Watch a few Guy Ritchie films for further study.

 

Now although I can't answer for burger, I am undoubtedly filled with it.

 

Now that I know what it is, I can unequivocally admit that I am full of bollocks myself from time to time Apparently, burgertime thinks I'm briarcreekwx and/or snow89 which I assume is who you were referring to earlier. I take it they must have been some infamous poster from years gone by?

[metalicwx366]

Who is snow89? I thought he was calling you Wilkes. Just ignore burgertime because he obviously doesn't know what he is talking about.

[Cold Rain]

I know there is no science behind that. Also I would like to see more into this Siberian snowfall theory. I don't think it worked out well last year.

I wonder if there is any correlation between hurricane season and winter. This year was pitiful, 2009 was as well.

Siberian snowfall increase through the month of October tends to correlate to -AO, which, though better to have than not, doesn't always help us (see last winter).

Recurving Atlantic canes tend to correlate to -NAO, I think?? Don't know what a butt crack of a cane season means, though.

[calculus1]

Ha! I'm sure the center of Hell was a little stuffy for you. I will say that the humidity was high, but it tends to do that when it's freaking raining every day.

 

I see you've already updated your signature back to the NO BOLLOCKS zone.  Well done.

 

I think we all know who this could be. 

 

Welcome back, Burger!  I know you've peaked in once in a while over the summer, but it's about time for AmericanWX to become part of your daily routine again, isn't it? 

 

Who might I be? I must say, I don't know what I have done to cause such a stir. I thought this was the 2013-14 winter outlook thread , so shoot me for talking weather and offering up a discussion.

 

I have no clue what bollocks means, but I think both of you may be full of it (or them?). 

 

Welcome to the party, 1300m!  The SE subforum is a great place to hang during the winter months (and all year round, for that matter).  We have our tussles from time to time, but it's nothing like the nightmares that develop in the MA and NE subforums, and that's saying nothing for the PR (political roundtable) forum (all bets are off in there).  I hope you'll find this place to your liking.

 

And, yes, this whole post is mostly banter, Buckeye.  My apologies for cluttering up the thread.  I just found all the people I wanted to respond to already posting in here.