Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,586
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Storm next weekend has better teleconnector support than this misery ever did

Typhoon Tip

By Typhoon Tip,
in New England

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Typhoon Tip

Typhoon Tip

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It's a strong one as we thought. Hopefully this storm can break the no KU curse.

A little basic primer on the usage of linear statistical correlations:

1) Ensure your sample size is sufficiently large; in this case, how many strong La Nina events have there been spanning 200 years? If that number is comparatively small relative to the N values in the total range (say 10 or 20 out of the 200 totale years), you have a problem with confidence (confidence as a mathematical term, not a state of mind). There are plenty of examples where multipe years passed by and a classically definable KU system did not take place. 1985 - 1990 for example...etc. This immediately contradicts the veracity of any conclusion that La Nina prevents KU cyclogeenesis by asserting an arguement that spatial-temporality may simply not have line up. But day that slot machines...

2) Statistics hide the characterization of the field; in this, labeling a given era as La Nina and then discounting all other potential factors that contribute to variations in outcome is inherently flawed logic. This point is why I have a problem with these statistics dependent conclusions that may or may not come form a Meteorological informed background. That is not a dig on any person per se, but strongly questions the usefulness of that method. Namely, how many strong La Nina events occurred during the 300-year superposition of the 11 year, 22 year, and 300 year solar cycle intervals - in this case a superposition that is negative. The -AO is heavily correlated with that, and has been verifying beautifully 2009-2010, and so far 2010-? Physics aside, that correlation cannot be refuted as it is observationally derived.

On a related note...

This season is witnessing a hemispheric suppression in latitude with the ambient geopotential medium and attendent main band of westerlies, consitent with ongoing pesistent (to date) -AO. One thing you have to also consider is that gradient drives everything. Gradient gradient gradient dictates how the variou mass fields, atmosphere and oceanic alone and in the coupled model, will interact to produce the various outcomes. So the tropical Pacific SST medium is a degree or two C below normal; in a neutral (normal) atmospheric medium leading the La Nina pattern may be more directed than during a negative atmosphere leading, because the latter gradients are large.

An idea stemming from that logic I have been toying with is that should the gradient from the -AO suppression become sufficiently large, this may heavily skew the results away from La Nina, and actually enter an El Ninoesque type result; emphasis on the "esque", because although things may playout with Nina overtones, throwing up a KU or two may not be impossible considering the gradients at large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoastalWx

CoastalWx

Posted
Posted

yeah verbatim just a scrape/miss...but man with that arctic pv dumping down into the GL/NE...you tuck that surface low about 100 miles west and that is a monster

That lead s/w running out kind of steals the show, but it looked pretty good prior to that. Not sure what to think..seems a little weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weatherwiz

weatherwiz

Posted
Posted

yeah verbatim just a scrape/miss...but man with that arctic pv dumping down into the GL/NE...you tuck that surface low about 100 miles west and that is a monster

That PV is REALLY displaced further south from the 0z run but it's also a bit weaker and luckily doesn't have much confluence at all with it. How the models handle this over the coming days will sure make things interesting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leesun

leesun

Posted
Posted

Well feel better now. This is the time frame that the GFS usually looses the storm and gets it back 72Hrs out. In all seriousness, the phasing occurs too late, but I don't look at this run as a bad thing just yet. We'll see what the next few runs bring.

Looks it........

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cold Miser

Cold Miser

Posted
Posted

Looks like the UL divergence is really slow to get going so it takes a bit longer for sfc low development...heck at 114 HR were just starting to see low development and it's pretty far off the coast where the baroclinic zone is.

At least this far out no one has hopes set high.

. . . BTW Wiz, what the hell does the "<3" symbol next to your "I love Miley Cyrus" quote mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weatherwiz

weatherwiz

Posted
Posted

That lead s/w running out kind of steals the show, but it looked pretty good prior to that. Not sure what to think..seems a little weird.

It doesn't even look like it goes negatively tilted really or if it does it's not too strong of a negative tilt so it doesn't really dig all that much but stays rather flat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clinch Leatherwood

Clinch Leatherwood

Posted
Posted

That lead s/w running out kind of steals the show, but it looked pretty good prior to that. Not sure what to think..seems a little weird.

that seems to ruin every storm chance.

Bob what I didn't like when I made the comment at 60h was the open/positive nature to the s/w. Lost a lot in my eyes at that point. Symptomatic of later problems. Sure the heights are wonderful in the west but all it serves to do is build a big low up by NS.

Not too worried about it, but threat seems to be SE NE in my eyes (and then maybe downeast). That may change and given the inability to even resolve short term situations I don't put much stock in any model now.

Huge potential still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dryslot

dryslot

Posted
Posted

As usual it will all potentially come down to a lead s/w moving out east. If that gets pulled back into the closing low in time great, if not could be a tough one.

Like the heights building out west and the MN Mauler moving down into the developing trough.

Definitly like the heights out west, Depends where it ends up i guess.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dryslot

dryslot

Posted
Posted

Well feel better now. This is the time frame that the GFS usually looses the storm and gets it back 72Hrs out. In all seriousness, the phasing occurs too late, but I don't look at this run as a bad thing just yet. We'll see what the next few runs bring.

Yes, We are getting into that timframe where the gfs goes thru its cycles of losing things just to bring it back, I am not dissapointed to say with this run, But i am not going to get to high or to low over it at this point, there is plenty of time on this and if globals show something different, Then it could be discounted at this stage...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...