Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,606
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

Winter 2014/15 Med/Long Range Discussion Part 3


Chicago Storm

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Just a FYI.. Blizz of 78, 79, 99, super clipper 05, GHD, and last Jan 5th ( this was almost neutral though ) came with the PNA on the + side. The one biggie that didn't was Jan 67..

 

It wasn't extremely positive ( close to neutral )  but was positive.

 

Just a FYI.. Blizz of 78, 79, 99, super clipper 05, GHD, and last Jan 5th ( this was almost neutral though ) came with the PNA on the + side. The one biggie that didn't was Jan 67..

 

It wasn't extremely positive ( close to neutral )  but was positive.

Harry.  I just checked the NARR maps off the PSU website.  Did you mean -PNA in the one to two days leading up to 79,99,GHD?  78 is not on that site, but all three 79,99,GHD had a strong trough over the SW US that kicked out and popped a good se ridge.  Now granted I didn't look at the daily values of the PNA leading up to the events but my guess is that they would be negative unless I have a incorrect understanding of what a -PNA looks like, but I am under the believe that it would be very hard to did a SW US trough without a -PNA.

 

Opps didn't mean to quote twice sorry, my bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and for reference, PNA values for the Jan 1967, Jan 1979, Jan 1999, Feb 2008 and GHD 2011 storms in the Midwest.

 

Data from here: ftp://ftp.cdc.noaa.gov/Public/gbates/teleconn/pna.reanalysis.t10trunc.1948-present.txt

 

1967 01 24 -278.82
1967 01 25 -231.68
1967 01 26 -113.22
1967 01 27 -1.91
1967 01 28 127.55
1967 01 29 165.41

 

1979 01 11 -14.81
1979 01 12 -197.43
1979 01 13 -274.48
1979 01 14 -306.94
1979 01 15 -296.81
1979 01 16 -284.00

 

1998 12 31 84.83
1999 01 01 35.03
1999 01 02 19.57
1999 01 03 22.01
1999 01 04 57.32
1999 01 05 70.26

 

2008 02 03 -486.26
2008 02 04 -389.78
2008 02 05 -328.54
2008 02 06 -292.07
2008 02 07 -270.94
2008 02 08 -227.41

 

2011 01 31 -39.75
2011 02 01 101.42
2011 02 02 118.81
2011 02 03 43.37
2011 02 04 -74.28
2011 02 05 -100.82

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and for reference, PNA values for the Jan 1967, Jan 1979, Jan 1999, Feb 2008 and GHD 2011 storms in the Midwest.

 

Data from here: ftp://ftp.cdc.noaa.gov/Public/gbates/teleconn/pna.reanalysis.t10trunc.1948-present.txt

 

1967 01 24 -278.82

1967 01 25 -231.68

1967 01 26 -113.22

1967 01 27 -1.91

1967 01 28 127.55

1967 01 29 165.41

 

1979 01 11 -14.81

1979 01 12 -197.43

1979 01 13 -274.48

1979 01 14 -306.94

1979 01 15 -296.81

1979 01 16 -284.00

 

1998 12 31 84.83

1999 01 01 35.03

1999 01 02 19.57

1999 01 03 22.01

1999 01 04 57.32

1999 01 05 70.26

 

2008 02 03 -486.26

2008 02 04 -389.78

2008 02 05 -328.54

2008 02 06 -292.07

2008 02 07 -270.94

2008 02 08 -227.41

 

2011 01 31 -39.75

2011 02 01 101.42

2011 02 02 118.81

2011 02 03 43.37

2011 02 04 -74.28

2011 02 05 -100.82

 

 

Thanks!

 

I was using this..

ftp://ftp.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/cwlinks/norm.daily.pna.index.b500101.current.ascii

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical +PNA look.

PNA_POSITIVE_1981.gif

 

Typical -PNA look.

PNA_NEGATIVE_1985.gif

 

Thanks Andy, I guess my understanding of -PNA was correct.

 

 

And that look favors the far nw part of the subforum ( MN/NW.WI ) and thus does nothing for MOST of the rest of the subforum. My point stands. Nobody cares about rainstorms in winter.. Unless ofcourse there is some severe to go with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that look favors the far nwe part of the subforum ( MN/NW.WI ) and thus does nothing for MOST of the rest of the subforum. My point stands. Nobody cares about rainstorms in winter.. Unless ofcourse there is some severe to go with it.

 

-PNA is much better for severe events yes. I did a research post on another board regarding this and 75% of the significant tornado events that I looked at since 1948 were during some kind of PNA <0 (which makes sense when you look at the 500 mb anomalies there).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-PNA is much better for severe events yes. I did a research post on another board regarding this and 75% of the significant tornado events that I looked at since 1948 were during some kind of PNA <0 (which makes sense when you look at the 500 mb anomalies there).

 

 

Yep.. Hopefully we see a lil more of that this spring..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I really don't care much about snow pack unless it fresh and will have a bigger impact on cold temps.

It actually amazes me how many of my fellow weather weenies here in the north dont really love winter as much as you would think. I mean they love winter for a good snowstorm and all, but those of us who enjoy winter for its beauty as well as its recreational appeal seem to be few and far between on this board. Bo made a comment about winter as reset button for nature and i have to agree. I spent several boring weather days the last few weeks hiking in the park among a pristine winter wonderland, rather than sitting inside and looking at the dull pattern on the weather models, lamenting this winters boringness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

even here, where snow depth is nearly 3' right now, my keep standard would be 8". Yours is pretty high considering where you live. Basically, you don't care about snowpack? :D

 

My local threshold of interest is 6 inches, anything less than that isn't so important. 12 inches is rare territory here, 15 inches for Eastpoint is like a twice per decade amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-PNA is much better for severe events yes. I did a research post on another board regarding this and 75% of the significant tornado events that I looked at since 1948 were during some kind of PNA <0 (which makes sense when you look at the 500 mb anomalies there).

 

After witnessing the amount of death caused by tornados... I'd rather pass on them all together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that look favors the far nw part of the subforum ( MN/NW.WI ) and thus does nothing for MOST of the rest of the subforum. My point stands. Nobody cares about rainstorms in winter.. Unless ofcourse there is some severe to go with it.

 

That look does favor a MSP special, however how far east or west the PNA trough develops may very well determine how strong the se ridge is and how far it can extend to the west, the further west the more likely for a MSP special.  If the se ridge is weaker the more likely a ORD special is in order. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JB's latest is the storm next weekend digs further, more energy comes across the south, pulls in the northern branch and a triple phaser is born as the arctic branch gets pulled in last.   Using March '93 as an example.   Alas, his description would mostly be a scenario of epic weather for the eastcoast why we would watch all of this action rotate around us. :beer:

 

ok all laughing aside for a moment.  March '93 blew mooseballs here in CMH.  Woke up that morning and the NWS in CMH had issued a blizzard warning.  We had a full day of light powdery snow, ended up with 4" over 12 hours.and never really reached blizzard criteria.   The gradient was painful.  A drive 30 minutes east and the snow totals exploded, upwards of 2' in eastern OH.

 

Ok, back to drinking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After witnessing the amount of death caused by tornados... I'd rather pass on them all together.

 

Yes, we get that you are completely against severe weather, you made that abundantly clear last year.

 

Also this stupid "severe weather causes fatalities so the people that like it must be degenerates" argument will never go away. The Blizzard of 1888 killed over 400, the March 1993 and November 1950 storms each caused over 300 deaths, while the 1996 storm killed over 150.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been a big proponent of snow depth. I don't get the fascination of looking outside at snow on the ground. Maybe it's because summer is my favorite season with winter coming in 2nd. I do understand it if you board, ski, snowmobile, etc..But it doesn't give me any "high" to see a deep depth. Snow is on the ground at the resort I go to 45 mins away nearly every year no matter what, so having a deep depth around my house is only good for when I use my in-laws snowmobiles a few times a year. I am pretty sure winter related traffic accidents kill more people than Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Floods, earthquakes combined in the USA. The November storm killed 15 people in WNY. I also hear about a person every week dying in a car accident during a winter weather related event. In topic related, the long range looks pretty boring aside from a few clippers. Hoping they can deliver for those snow starved in the coming weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, this is what it has come to, posting about truncated ensemble means rather than the next snow event.

 

Angry, this is the Medium/Long range thread. It is a continuation of the discussion of the vodka cold being espoused by the Euro and now being recognized by the GFS.

 

You're welcome to put your two cents in here regarding next weekends event. I'm sure the gang here is withholding judgement based on past performances of several Charlie Brown football storms this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angry, this is the Medium/Long range thread. It is a continuation of the discussion of the vodka cold being espoused by the Euro and now being recognized by the GFS.

 

You're welcome to put your two cents in here regarding next weekends event. I'm sure the gang here is withholding judgement based on past performances of several Charlie Brown football storms this year.

I understand Angry's point that we mostly of this winter has been discussing the LONG range (day 8-15) OP & ensemble means rather than the next coming snow event (there really are none).  This is what this winter has come down for the most part.

 

What worse is that the long range in the models have been even more unreliable than normal. :axe:

 

I am not trying to start a debate at all but that is how I interpreted his post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It actually amazes me how many of my fellow weather weenies here in the north dont really love winter as much as you would think. I mean they love winter for a good snowstorm and all, but those of us who enjoy winter for its beauty as well as its recreational appeal seem to be few and far between on this board. Bo made a comment about winter as reset button for nature and i have to agree. I spent several boring weather days the last few weeks hiking in the park among a pristine winter wonderland, rather than sitting inside and looking at the dull pattern on the weather models, lamenting this winters boringness.

 

Well bear in mind this is a weather board, so we're more interested in real-time precipitation and temperature activity occurring in the atmosphere. And for weather weenies like us, the more extreme it is, the better. For most of us, I'm sure it was witnessing an impressive weather event as average joes that sparked our interest in tracking and observing weather events. We were so impressed by mother nature fury that we want to experience that same fury again...

 

Snow just sitting on the ground, in the technical sense, isn't weather. This is especially true when it's nothing extreme or record-breaking.

 

That said, I can see how snowcover would be important to those who are primarily interested in simply keeping track of statistics of atmospheric conditions (climo), such as yourself (and don't get me wrong, this can be very useful for those who are trying to track future weather events to determine the probability of them occurring). I can also see how snowcover would be important to those who primarily interested in enjoying winter sports. 

 

But again, I don't see it as being so amazing if so relatively few people on a weather board share you enthusiasm about winter sports or statistics as they're, for all intents and purposes, completely separate interests...

 

(BTW, this post isn't to pick on you and anyone else. It was just to clear a few things up)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you love snow, but hate it once it touches the ground, you are a weird person. It has nothing to do with statistics or climatology. Most people who like snow appreciate the transformative effect it has on a landscape. I am also surprised that so many people here would apparently get off on a 34 degree blizzard during which every flake melted once it touched the ground because, at that point, it is no longer weather. This whole "snow is only good when it is falling" mindset is new to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liking winter and liking snowpack are synonymous.

 

If you put it that way, sure.

 

But I don't see anything amazing about WEATHER weenies not being impressed by snowcover and snow depth. Just as well, it is possible for WEATHER weenies to be interested in experiencing winter time atmospheric events without liking the other aspects of Winter...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also surprised that so many people here would apparently get off on a 34 degree blizzard during which every flake melted once it touched the ground because, at that point, it is no longer weather.

 

Weather, by its technical definition, refers to day-to-day temperature and precipitation activity (or the degree in which the atmosphere is stormy vs. calm, wet vs. dry, hot vs. cold and clear vs cloudy).  

 

So I have to disagree with you there. Snow falling at 34*F with frequent wind gust of 35+ MPH is technically weather, although it may not be the ideal weather for some (not to say *I* would "get off" on that exact type of weather).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you love snow, but hate it once it touches the ground, you are a weird person. It has nothing to do with statistics or climatology. Most people who like snow appreciate the transformative effect it has on a landscape. I am also surprised that so many people here would apparently get off on a 34 degree blizzard during which every flake melted once it touched the ground because, at that point, it is no longer weather. This whole "snow is only good when it is falling" mindset is new to me.

 

snow is only good when it's falling and the immediate 12 hours after

 

the obsessing and romanticizing of 1-2" nickel and dime events must be a Michigan thing.

 

on the plus side, the 12z GFS isn't a deep freeze snoozer so that's nice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...