Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

February Pattern Disco


40/70 Benchmark

Recommended Posts

 

Color me confused.

 

oh, ha!  okay - i thought you meant that seasonal model.

 

come to think about it - is that even called the cdc?  i think i got that wrong... I think it's the CF something -

 

climate diagnostic center - yes, they do as good a job as any at arithmetic ;)  

 

they're not lying, or inventing numbers.   eof calculations are the same regardless of the university, provided the numbers going into the polynomial expressions are the same.   

 

having said that, yes there are differences in the agencies.  the cpc, climate prognostic center for example, uses the mid level geopotential anomalies for their teleconnector derivatives.   the cdc on the other hand, uses low-level wind flux anomalies. 

 

in the strict theoretical sense, it should not matter.  the mid level geopotential heights cannot be disconnect from low-level wind fileds, as the modulation of the mid level is what ultimately drives the wind - duh.  there may be some lag where the mid leads the low level by some ...but not that much.  

 

anyway, the CPC numbers show the same thing.   dipping PNA out in time with an NAO remaining positive.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

oh, ha!  okay - i thought you meant that seasonal model.

 

come to think about it - is that even called the cdc?  i think i got that wrong... I think it's the CF something -

 

climate diagnostic center - yes, they do as good a job as any at arithmetic ;)

 

they're not lying, or inventing numbers.   eof calculations are the same regardless of the university, provided the numbers going into the polynomial expressions are the same.   

 

having said that, yes there are differences in the agencies.  the cpc, climate prognostic center for example, uses the mid level geopotential anomalies for their teleconnector derivatives.   the cdc on the other hand, uses low-level wind flux anomalies. 

 

in the strict theoretical sense, it should not matter.  the mid level geopotential heights cannot be disconnect from low-level wind fileds, as the modulation of the mid level is what ultimately drives the wind - duh.  there may be some lag where the mid leads the low level by some ...but not that much.  

 

anyway, the CPC numbers show the same thing.   dipping PNA out in time with an NAO remaining positive.  

 

so...they follow the GEFS, which has recently done a complete reversal in the tropics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still having a difficult time buying into the total collapse of the Pacific pattern progged by the ECMWF ensembles for mid February. Latest bias corrected ECMWF MJO guidance continues to weaken the amplitude of the wave such that it's barely coherent propagating through octants 4-5-6. Additionally, the upper divergence signal in the central tropical Pacific will be much more significant than the IO/Indonesia convection, which leads me to believe the lower than normal heights will not shift into AK/British Columbian coast for D 10-15. Furthermore, the evolution of stratospheric heights continues to be suggestive of a tropospheric reflection of higher than normal geopotential heights across the Arctic [especially the Pacific side] southward into AK and western Canada. As the wave-1 induced displacement begins to re-orient the 10hpa vortex toward northern Europe, we see some stratospheric height rises occurring in the west based NAO region as well. This is why (IMO) you're starting to see some semblance of increased central / west based -NAO ridging in the Feb 10th-15th period. If not for the destruction of the Pacific on the ECMWF ensembles, it would be a very good pattern. Seems to be that it is overestimating the influence of the weak IO/W PAC MJO forcing. Other indicators don't necessarily concur w/ that progression. AAM tendency and GWO orbit also argues for Pacific Jet retraction, but not to the extent the LR ECMWF indicates, whereby a La Nina-like tropospheric circulation pattern develops.

 

 

Stratosphere wise. Very interesting / unprecedented situation this year. Record temperatures up to 90N w/ a 70-75 K increase, record daily wave-1 amplitudes, and possibly record energy transfer / heat flux values, yet we will narrowly miss the technical 60N / 10hpa wind reversal definition necessary for a major SSW. Still, we're looking at one of the most significant zonal wind reductions in the records as far as stratospheric warming events. The unprecedented cold / strong state of the vortex this year will be able to survive against some of the strongest wave-1/displacement activity we've seen. Regardless, the sensible weather tropospheric evolution will generally be as if we did attain the major SSW displacement in my opinion (for the US). Europe will not see the benefits as they need to see the vortex driven further south to benefit from more northerly flow.

 

Interesting month ahead I think.

 

2119gr8.png

 

2rhb5z5.png

 

olr.cfs.all.global.7.png

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...