Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

January 2017 Discussion & Observations


dmillz25

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, pazzo83 said:

Upton has us of one day below normal this weekend, so I don't see how you can justify continuing the prior streak of cold to this coming Saturday.

The forecast for Manhattan from Upton...

 

Friday 0 % Precip. / 0 in

Mostly sunny. Highs in the mid 40s. Northwest winds 10 to 15 mph with gusts up to 30 mph.

Friday Night 0 % Precip. / 0 in

Partly cloudy in the evening...then becoming mostly cloudy. Cooler with lows in the mid 20s. North winds 10 to 15 mph.

If that checks out, Friday will be an AN day.

 

Saturday 20 % Precip. / 0 in

Cloudy. A chance of light snow...mainly in the afternoon. Cooler with highs in the lower 30s. Northeast winds around 5 mph...becoming southeast in the afternoon. Chance of snow 50 percent.

Saturday Night 40 % Precip. / --

Mostly cloudy. A chance of light snow in the evening. Lows in the upper 20s. Chance of snow 50 percent.

This day should be a couple degrees BN.

 

Sunday 10 % Precip. / 0 in

Sunny. Highs around 40.

Sunday Night 0 % Precip. / 0 in

Mostly clear. Lows in the upper 20s.

Back to slightly above (avg temps for 1/15 is 38/27)

 

I used SAT SUN MON 

Why are you using FRI ? And point and click non the less. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 minutes ago, pazzo83 said:

Let's say Sunday is 40/28.  That's an average of 34 which is 1.5F above normal for the date.

That's also not the point-and-click, that's the Zone Forecast for Manhattan.

Chris 7 days ago, this weekend was forecast to torch . The idea of a H sliding through was not seen . I made the point that this 12 day period would be similar to Dec in terms of how many days BN .

 

No one questions the 17 - 24 th torch . But this weekend was suppose to be in that period and I disagreed .

 

Lets see what Sat Sun Mon finish and weigh the 5 -16 , the also weigh the 5- 20 ( which was overextended ) , prob 5 days too long . 

 

But as a side note , the snowfall worked and that call was made on Dec 27 . 

 

Now FEB will be our best winter month . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PB GFI said:

Chris 7 days ago, this weekend was forecast to torch . The idea of a H sliding through was not seen . I made the point that this 12 day period would be similar to Dec in terms of how many days BN .

 

No one questions the 17 - 24 th torch . But this weekend was suppose to be in that period and I disagreed .

 

Lets see what Sat Sun Mon finish and weigh the 5 -16 , the also weigh the 5- 20 ( which was overextended ) , prob 5 days too long . 

 

But as a side note , the snowfall worked and that call was made on Dec 27 . 

 

Now FEB will be our best winter month . 

actually many of the models showed an in and out cold shot around MLK weekend, even two weeks ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, qg_omega said:

actually many of the models showed an in and out cold shot around MLK weekend, even two weeks ago.

 

Not even a little . 

 

The day 10 -15  for Jan 10 -15 showed a 5 day torch and high heights over the East. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, qg_omega said:

actually many of the models showed an in and out cold shot around MLK weekend, even two weeks ago.

I thought the modeling around the 25th of dec to the end of the year was terrible...first had the cold coming back for a couple of weeks around the 10th, then got moved up to the 5th and then turned into a whoopdeedo 5 day shot of true arctic cold that was in and out.   Got lucky with the snowstorm and morning temps-without the snow no one would have seen anything close to 0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Isotherm said:

Jan 10-15 and Jan 10-20 will have an above normal departure. The brief cool this weekend isn't anywhere near as anomalous as the current torch.

 

Of course not / I am defending the call that a H twas going to split in because of the - EPO/ WPO .  I though  we would flip after the 20th , we do 4 days earlier .

 

We are AN though the 24th no question . But if one  makes a call here today and forecast through the guidance at what the 500 is showing 10 days away and it comes to fruition it`s a good forecast .

 

I don`t think 1 person doesn`t see 7 days of plus 10 . We splitting hairs .

 

Onto FEB which I am starting to think breaks BN.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, bluewave said:

With the exception of the record AO reversal from positive to negative last winter and ensuing historic blizzard, most of our snowfall opportunities since the 

12-13 winter ended have been -EPO or +PNA driven. If we get any help from the AO or NAO regions later this winter, then we can just consider it a bonus.

Looks like guidance wants to focus primary post January 25 blocking in the +PNA region to start. We'll see where we can take things from there in regard

to duration and extent of the blocking.

 

Yes, it has been amazing the extent to which the Pacific drove favorable snow patterns since 2013. I doubt anyone is complaining, but if I had my choice, I would take NAO/AO based blocks like 10-11 as I like to hold the snow on the ground for awhile too. Winter to me isn't only about snow, it is cold and snow cover as well. I will say 13-15 did a good job of keeping the snow on the ground without the NAO. I believe in 13-14 I had a 30 day uninterrupted interval of snow cover, and 14-15, from late Jan through early march. Of course 10-11 was about 2 consecutive months. It is also difficult to achieve bigger events without the AO/NAO domain cooperation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Isotherm said:

Jan 10-15 and Jan 10-20 will have an above normal departure. The brief cool this weekend isn't anywhere near as anomalous as the current torch.

Per Upton, Saturday is looking like something around 33/28.  That's an avg of 30.5F, which is only 2F below normal.  If that holds, there's no way it overcomes the positive departures we'll see over the rest of the Jan 10-20 period.

So far we've built up a positive anomaly of 34.5 over the period:

1/10: 45/21 +0.5

1/11: 52/42 +14.5

1/12 (so far) 56/48 +19.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Isotherm said:

 

Yes, it has been amazing the extent to which the Pacific drove favorable snow patterns since 2013. I doubt anyone is complaining, but if I had my choice, I would take NAO/AO based blocks like 10-11 as I like to hold the snow on the ground for awhile too. Winter to me isn't only about snow, it is cold and snow cover as well. I will say 13-15 did a good job of keeping the snow on the ground withou the NAO. I believe in 13-14 I had a 30 day uninterrupted interval of snow cover, and 14-15, from late Jan through early march. It is also difficult to achieve bigger events without the AO/NAO domain cooperation. 

In addition, we really have been using the short windows of cold that we have gotten since last winter to produce snowfall. Last winter JFK nearly matched

the seasonal snowfall totals of 13-14 and 14-15 with substantially fewer number of cold days. JFK is already at around 50% of seasonal snowfall with

12.6 inches so far. JFK only had 8 below normal temperature days in December and 5 for January so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In October, Eurasian snow cover expanded at its fastest rate since 2014 according to the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab data. In theory, that should indicate a predominantly negative Arctic Oscillation (AO) during the winter. Instead, 37 of the first 43 days (86%) of meteorological winter have seen positive AO values, including 27 (63%) with values of +1.000 or above. This marks the 3rd consecutive year that the supposed connection between changes in October Eurasian snow cover and the predominant state of the AO have not been consistent.

This raises the question as to whether the relationship is much weaker than had previously appeared. It also raises a question as to whether rapid expansion of Eurasian snow cover is the result of the October AO, not the driver of the October AO.

After examining Eurasian snow cover data and the AO, my conclusions are as follows:

• The connections between October Eurasian snow cover and the predominant winter AO and between the change in October Eurasian snow cover and the predominant winter AO are weak (statistically little different from climatology).

• The increase in Eurasian October snow cover is much more likely the result of the predominant state of the October AO than a driver of the October AO, even as some second order effects may be present. 90% of the cases that saw Eurasian snow cover increase by 0.5σ or more above average in October were associated with a negative AO. However, the negative AO was also present in 46% of cases when Eurasian snow cover increased by 0.5σ or more below average in October. Were changes in Eurasian October snow cover the driver, one should have seen much fewer AO- cases when such snow cover increased at a much slower rate than normal.

The sample period was 1970-2015 for Eurasian snow cover averages and 1972-2015 (1971 data was missing for September) for the October change in Eurasian snow cover.

In sum, the data suggest that Eurasian snow cover or changes in Eurasian snow cover in October provide little meaningful insight into the predominant state of the winter (December-February) AO. Just taking the October AO value and assuming that it would reflect the predominant winter AO state fared no worse. Therefore, the seeming decoupling of the snow cover changes and the winter AO are very likely not exceptional cases, but the norm. Put another way, the Rutgers snow data and the CPC AO data suggest that, at present, Eurasian snow cover or changes in such snow cover during October (also November) are not statistically better than climatology when it comes to trying to forecast the predominant winter state of the AO. This does not mean that there is no correlation. It only means that use of Eurasian snow cover data is not much more skillful than climatology when it comes to forecasting the predomiant winter AO.

Data Sources:
AO: http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/monthly.ao.index.b50.current.ascii.table

Eurasian Snow Cover: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.php?ui_set=1

Some tables:

 

AO01122017-SnowAOjpg.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pazzo83 said:

KNYC has recorded 6.3" of snow this month.  The January average is 7", so we're still below normal for the entire month at this point.  I don't think you can assume that snowfall is evenly distributed throughout the month for the averages.

FWIW, the normal snowfall (1981-2010 period) for the January 1-12 period is 2.6". Ten days have normal daily amounts of 0.2" and two have normal daily amounts of 0.3". For now, it does remain to be seen whether January will finish with above normal snowfall for the month, but there's plenty of time to get there even considering the warmth that still lies ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

HPN also set a new record. BDR and FOK are within 2° of their daily record.

Don, would you happen to know what the NJ state record is for temperature rises over a 2 or 3 day period?

Toms river was -5 on the 9th and -4 on the 10th. The latest temperature this hour there is 67 degrees.

https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KMJX/2017/1/9/DailyHistory.html

TOMS RIVER*    MOSUNNY   67  53  61 SW20G28   30.08F
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Don, would you happen to know what the NJ state record is for temperature rises over a 2 or 3 day period?

Toms river was -5 on the 9th and -4 on the 10th. The latest temperature this hour there is 67 degrees.

https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KMJX/2017/1/9/DailyHistory.html


TOMS RIVER*    MOSUNNY   67  53  61 SW20G28   30.08F

Unfortunately, I don't have that data. It would be interesting to know given the extreme change that has taken place.

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...