January Medium/Long Range Discussion Part 2

[Wonderdog]

24 minutes ago, losetoa6 said:

Here's day 8 eps ...

There some members with real bombs in this time frame.  About 15-20% show some snow. 

We need this off the coast but plenty of time to adjust.

[psuhoffman]

2 hours ago, C.A.P.E. said:

GEFS moved towards that evolution. It is slower than the eps, but that may correct in future runs. Just glad to see it cave some, such that there is no longer such a wide disparity.

For about 48 hours the gefs went off on its own tangent.  While it was slightly disturbing to me the meltdowns it imspired from some was funny. It never made that much sense to me.  It was showing the same pattern as December but with many of the pattern drivers in completely opposite states.  even the qbo becomes less of a problem for us heading into the second half of winter as Ender did an excellent job pointing out.  Thanks again.  

The gfs was arguing against the soi and mjo and even its own progs as at the start of its divergence around day 8 it was shoving the trough down the inter mountain west while there was healthy ridging across Canada and developing in Yukon.  That argues the trough would come east at least in part.  Later on the GFS was pulling the ridge back into the PAC to support the trough in the west but that's backwards logic.  I've also seen models do that stuck in the west thing with troughs and be wrong plenty.  I don't know if it's their problems with the mountains.  Maye they over do the feedback and see the cooling from the upslope effect and just want to stick the trough there too much.  

Patterns can run contrary to signals sometimes and if all the guidance is lined up then l have to accept there is a good chance I'm just missing something that's driving the pattern.  But when all other guidance was showing what looked more realistic it made me think the gfs was just miscalculating something  

 

[mitchnick]

7 minutes ago, Wonderdog said:

We need this off the coast but plenty of time to adjust.

Cold air would help too. There's a reason why only 15% of the individual ensemble members show snow with this mean 850 temps. 

http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=ecmwf-ens&region=us&pkg=T850_mslp&runtime=2017011600&fh=192&xpos=0&ypos=218

[psuhoffman]

2 hours ago, showmethesnow said:

Definitely made a move towards the EPS with pulling the southwest trough out quicker. But even still that pause is delaying the evolution of the pattern on the GEFS by roughly 4 days compared to the EPS. Think if we were to see the GEFS pull that trough through the southwest without delay, as the EPS does, we would see the two models in very good agreement.  The look on the EPS even improved compared to its previous runs. Also have to wonder if the EPS may like the period centered roughly around day 12 for something popping up. 

It will be interesting to see the weeklies tonight as they are run off last nights EPS and I am curious where they go with that. It was a good run to me. 

[showmethesnow]

1 minute ago, losetoa6 said:

Those with wxbell access look at eps member E4 ... ( for giggles mostly) a 975 low off the Carolina coast bombing and crushes us..

 This is one way it would work ..lol

Funny, I almost brought this very thing to your attention about 10 minutes ago. Nice look though. Would make many in this forum happy.

[psuhoffman]

54 minutes ago, losetoa6 said:

Eps made a notable jump south with the day 8/9system . Nice cluster off  ocean City  with many sub 990 lows . Not much cold air but a reasonable size cluster has it just cold enough for snow. Of course areas with elevation would be favored but something to watch while we get bored with golfing and highs in the 50s. 

It's still far enough out to keep an eye on but the antecedent airmass sucks monkey nuts. Our area can work with that sometimes. The coastal plain needs more help. As others have said it would require a perfect track and bombing system. But I guess as a first threat it's worth one eye. I think we get better looks later on. 

Im not sure how much of a torch were really going to get. Things look pretty muted much of the time. Up here we're probably looking at 40s mostly. 50 ish in D.C. And Baltimore. That's nice but we're not talking epic torch anymore. There is just enough stale cool stuck under the ridge to prevent an all out torch it seems. 

[frd]

Interesting changes in the animations of the 10 mb warming getting ready to take place. Seems to favor cold centered over the Eastern US. If you use your imagination that temp profile and pattern,  if it happens , would look to support some Southern systems with ample cold for the SE and Mid Atlantic.

Another potential positive are a couple of the MJO forecasts have the MJO returning, or doing a circle back to favorable phase 8 and 1, later in Feb, after originally being in a favorable stage prior to that. If that happens would seem to reload, or extend the possibility of storminess and cold in the East later in Feb, Looked that info over from DT's  This week in weather last night.

DT's original reference two weeks back when he did  this week in weather when he mentioned that the MJO signal would be real did turn out to be a correct forecast. Because of that I lean that those two models that show the MJO possibly going back into a more favorable phase again as having some merit.       

[psuhoffman]

35 minutes ago, poolz1 said:

CMC is in line with the eps.  Almost heartbreaking to see the lack of cold with a storm like the 00z cmc is showing.  Would just need marginal cold with a bombing low like that (984 on top of AC)....At least it is something of vague interest while we wait for things to shift.

Yea but adjust temps 3-5 degrees and that's a wet snow paste job. I doubt it but weirder things have happened and it's happening at the coldest time of year.   The pattern has changed by then but we're still dealing with the damage done to the thermal profile over North America. Will take time to get cold again. We're basically relying on the lower heights under the ridging in Canada to slowly develop its own cold over the Conus until any cross polar flow shows up later on. That will happen but it takes some time. The first week of the new pattern could feature better storm tracks but crappy temperature profiles. 

[Ralph Wiggum]

March 20th 1958 is a great example of a strong low well placed that pasted us ...no real cold around and well past peak climo ..

 

And it worked . So yea..January. .would work even easier.

Nothing comes easy for either of our areas.

[psuhoffman]

32 minutes ago, mdsnowlover said:

overall pattern responding to emerging MJO and strato warming??

I don't think we have seen any effect evident from the strat warm. That may show itself later. Mjo and soi drop definitely. Also seeing the effects of seasonal progression.  The same pattern reacts different later in winter. Shorter wavelengths and solar input increasing. Lots of factors are lining up and most of them are saying feb should be pretty good. 

[Ralph Wiggum]

Ditto that ...but just adding to others point and giving an ex. that  in January especially in the elevated burbs only marginal cold is needed in this type setup .

Agreed

[mdsnowlover]

2 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I don't think we have seen any effect evident from the strat warm. That may show itself later. Mjo and soi drop definitely. Also seeing the effects of seasonal progression.  The same pattern reacts different later in winter. Shorter wavelengths and solar input increasing. Lots of factors are lining up and most of them are saying feb should be pretty good. 

strato warm takes about 4-6 weeks for its effects to be felt, hence feb showing up as cold thru whole month, correct??plus MJO being in favorable stages

[mitchnick]

2 minutes ago, mdsnowlover said:

strato warm takes about 4-6 weeks for its effects to be felt, hence feb showing up as cold thru whole month, correct??plus MJO being in favorable stages

The strat event that occurred in early January last year led to the January bliz 2-3 weeks later, so it can sometimes happen faster.

[Ender]

18 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

It's still far enough out to keep an eye on but the antecedent airmass sucks monkey nuts. Our area can work with that sometimes. The coastal plain needs more help. As others have said it would require a perfect track and bombing system. But I guess as a first threat it's worth one eye. I think we get better looks later on. 

I don't think that a perfect track could salvage this. It's very, very hard to get it to snow along the coastal plain before the cold air is entrenched. Particularly so for those of us south of NY. Generally, if you're relying on "just in time cold" or dynamic cooling you're going to be disappointed east of the mountains. When in doubt, leave it out....

Anyhow, there's enough slack in the E US that, from an analog perspective, the 23rd - 25th looks intriguing. But...it's slack filled with modified continental and Pacific air. So,  promising for strong cyclogenisis with "precipitation". 

Any sort of "pattern change" antecedent cyclone should follow the typical scenario: several model runs that point to the potential for cold racing to the coast followed by a southern style Miller-B transition to taunt us, but those Miller-B's are pretty rare, and we'll all k know that as we see those runs. Then we'll close in on the date (say 6 - 7 days out) and models will correct the pace of the cold air and switch to a more typical Miller-B transfer from somewhere in the nothern OV or eastern GL region to off the NJ coast. Thereafter our cold arrives...and entrenches...and the real vigilance can begin. 

[psuhoffman]

17 minutes ago, losetoa6 said:

No doubt. ..agree on all points.

Btw... your contributions to this forum have been stellar this year...keep up the good work man.

Thank you

[psuhoffman]

20 minutes ago, losetoa6 said:

March 20th 1958 is a great example of a strong low well placed that pasted us ...no real cold around and well past peak climo ..

 

And it worked . So yea..January. .would work even easier.

Great example. Of course the problem with using those perfect and rare examples is they are memorable for a reason.  They are rare. It can work but 99% of the time does not. 

[PaEasternWX]

27 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I don't think we have seen any effect evident from the strat warm. That may show itself later. Mjo and soi drop definitely. Also seeing the effects of seasonal progression.  The same pattern reacts different later in winter. Shorter wavelengths and solar input increasing. Lots of factors are lining up and most of them are saying feb should be pretty good. 

Are any analogs saying February should be good?

[Ender]

23 minutes ago, losetoa6 said:

March 20th 1958 is a great example of a strong low well placed that pasted us ...no real cold around and well past peak climo ..

 

And it worked . So yea..January. .would work even easier.

1958 was an amazing year, and not just March of course, plus it's a popular analog the last week or so. Nonetheless in some ways March has advantages over January, namely in the opportunity for systems to cutoff, or nearly so, off the east coast. That's somewhat harder to accomplish this time of year. 

Still, it's exciting to see that year, among others, showing up in our analogs. 

[mitchnick]

19 minutes ago, PaEasternWX said:

Are any analogs saying February should be good?

Best enso matches I can see (cold neutral/weak Nina following a mod/strong Nino) are February of 55', 65', & 84'. At BWI,  one had 6"+ while the other 2 had <1" for the month. Short answer is "no".

[psuhoffman]

1 hour ago, Ender said:

I don't think that a perfect track could salvage this. It's very, very hard to get it to snow along the coastal plain before the cold air is entrenched. Particularly so for those of us south of NY. Generally, if you're relying on "just in time cold" or dynamic cooling you're going to be disappointed east of the mountains. When in doubt, leave it out....

Anyhow, there's enough slack in the E US that, from an analog perspective, the 23rd - 25th looks intriguing. But...it's slack filled with modified continental and Pacific air. So,  promising for strong cyclogenisis with "precipitation". 

Any sort of "pattern change" antecedent cyclone should follow the typical scenario: several model runs that point to the potential for cold racing to the coast followed by a southern style Miller-B transition to taunt us, but those Miller-B's are pretty rare, and we'll all k know that as we see those runs. Then we'll close in on the date (say 6 - 7 days out) and models will correct the pace of the cold air and switch to a more typical Miller-B transfer from somewhere in the nothern OV or eastern GL region to off the NJ coast. Thereafter our cold arrives...and entrenches...and the real vigilance can begin. 

Agree. The day 12-15 period is more promising in its current look although too far out to have any confidence or clarity. We do not do well when cold is not entrenched ahead of a system. It's why we typically score better as a favorable pattern is mature or breaking down not developing. 

Out my way we can sometimes score a few inches on the back end of these type systems though. So for the handful of posters in here up this way it bears a little more watching. Even here it's a long shot. People like to throw around the 1/100 type examples where this bombing low creating its own cold through a combo of convective cooling and crashing heights scenario worked out. But those are so rare it's mostly just false hope. Better to never expect it then be outrageously pleasantly surprised that once or twice in your lifetime it does.  

It's something worth tracking from an "it's interesting" perspective. I love weather. Even if it doesn't always make my lawn white. 

[Amped]

5 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Agree. The day 12-15 period is more promising in its current loo although too far out to have any confidence or clarity. We do not do well when cold is not entrenched ahead of a system. It's why we typically score better as a favorable pattern is mature or breaking down not developing. 

Out my way we can sometimes score a few inches on the back end of these type systems though. So for the handful of posters in here up this way it bears a little more watching. Even here it's a long shot. People like to throw around the 1/100 type examples where this bombing low creating its own cold through a combo of convective cooling and crashing heights scenario worked out. But those are so rare it's mostly just false hope. Better to never expect it then be outrageously pleasantly surprised that once or twice in your lifetime it does.  

It's something worth tracking from an "it's interesting" perspective. I love weather. Even if it doesn't always make my lawn white. 

Agreed after March 2013 I am never putting any stock in a marginal setup again.   We had several similar setups to the day 7 Euro in February 98 and none of the were snow.

[frd]

35 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

Best enso matches I can see (cold neutral/weak Nina following a mod/strong Nino) are February of 55', 65', & 84'. At BWI,  one had 6"+ while the other 2 had <1" for the month. Short answer is "no".

Mitch, very interesting, but wondering whether the actual analogs as we get closer to Feb. might be differant ones,  as the progression of the MJO may lead to more Ninoish set ups. 

[psuhoffman]

44 minutes ago, PaEasternWX said:

Are any analogs saying February should be good?

A lot of years with similar patterns, neutral or weak cold enso, pos qbo, low solar, warm Atlantic sst, were skewed cold and snowy feb and march yes. And ender has made several excellent posts highlighting how years with similar qbo almost universally turned cold and snowy in feb. there seems to be a true correlation between less blocking as an overall mean in winter and west qbo. However looking at just the west qbo and feb it seems there is a correlation with cold and snow.  Somewhat of a contradiction but as I've said seasonal variance can cause a different atmospheric reaction to the same factors. 

Additionalky the ensemble analogs have been littered lately with years that had some pretty memorable late seasons. Not every one may have worked in our specific yards but many features some pretty big end of season snowfalls in the east. 1956, 1960, 1961, 1964, 1969, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1993, 1999, have all been showing up regularly. Most featured at least some respectable snow in our general vicinity after feb 1. Some were the downright historic second halfs on record.  Now that's not the right way to use those analogs. Rolling a pattern ahead is tricky. But when all those years show up it certainly doesn't argue we're done. 

I will be really interested to see the ncep analogs once this pattern comes in range if the gefs locks into what I suspect is the more correct EPS depiction. The last couple days the gefs has been off on its own with a look I didn't buy so the analogs it produces are suspect. I don't have access to the EPS analogs. I think Ian or Matt did at one point. The only place I know that had them available was SV for a corporate price that was way out of my range. Have a family to feed and all. For some reason ncep provides geps analogs but only day 8 not day 11 so it's not in range yet. I won't be shocked to see some pretty good years start spitting out in the coming days. 

[frd]

Interesting 

 

[Bob Chill]

I'm not impressed with D10+ at all. It's a dry pattern. Ridge axis in the west is too far east. This cuts off the gulf and soutern stream.  To me it looks like a big rain storm ushers in seasonable to below normal temps but also a crappy storm pattern. Don't get me wrong, I haven't cracked a 1" snowfall this year so a 1-2" clipper would feel like a blizzard but Jan is looking rough in the snow chance dept. 

Things can get better later of course but this season has been pretty persistent at not getting things right for our area. If things start looking good for snow threats inside of 2 weeks I'll be more active but I've become a bit disinterested in things lately. 

[psuhoffman]

45 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

Best enso matches I can see (cold neutral/weak Nina following a mod/strong Nino) are February of 55', 65', & 84'. At BWI,  one had 6"+ while the other 2 had <1" for the month. Short answer is "no".

I am not picking on your post, you may be correct in identifying those years, but I would offer the counter point that identifying enso as the sole dominant factor to determine analog years is both risky (when the signal is so weak) and very limiting in producing enough years to have any statistical significance. 

Those 3 are good matches looking only at enso but all 3 have some pretty significant difference in other pattern drivers. Just looking at the qbo all 3 were east based in January. 84 started west in dec and was transitioning east all winter. None are a good arch in that way.

Back in November when I was looking at analogs all 3 made my first list when I first used enso to identify years but none of them made the final cut because they had so many contradictions in other pattern drivers. I think the pdo state, PAC sst outside enso regions, and Atlantic/amo as well as solar were mostly bad matches compared to other years that maybe weren't perfect enso matches but more similar overall. 

Choosing how to weight analogs is tricky. I don't know if following a super Nino is a significant enough factor to outweigh others. Not enough data to be conclusive. I tend to weight enso as a significant factor but not the end all that dominates all others at all times. A string enso signal is one of the most significant factors we can have though. 

If we use enso alone then yes the analogs look bad. If we use a more holistic grading to select analogs they look better. I don't know which is the way to go. 

[psuhoffman]

22 minutes ago, Amped said:

Agreed after March 2013 I am never putting any stock in a marginal setup again.   We had several similar setups to the day 7 Euro in February 98 and none of the were snow.

Ive said my peace about how rare it is to get this type thing to work but imho march 2013 was a different problem. That airmass was marginal but could have worked in a developing amplifying system where heights are crashing. But that system was actually washing out and weakening as it traversed our area. It was dampening into the ridge and going through a transition before later bombing again off New England. That's not what you want with marginal cold. 

[psuhoffman]

17 minutes ago, Bob Chill said:

I'm not impressed with D10+ at all. It's a dry pattern. Ridge axis in the west is too far east. This cuts off the gulf and soutern stream.  To me it looks like a big rain storm ushers in seasonable to below normal temps but also a crappy storm pattern. Don't get me wrong, I haven't cracked a 1" snowfall this year so a 1-2" clipper would feel like a blizzard but Jan is looking rough in the snow chance dept. 

Things can get better later of course but this season has been pretty persistent at not getting things right for our area. If things start looking good for snow threats inside of 2 weeks I'll be more active but I've become a bit disinterested in things lately. 

Your concerns are valid and I agree the period day 10-15 could be dry but I also don't think if this pattern locks in for any length that dry will be the problem overall. So many times I've worried about that then it wasn't a problem. It's pretty rare we get a long lasting cold pattern and no storm chances. We worry about it more then it actually happens. Yea cold dry warm wet is real in western trough patterns where any cold is transient behind a cutter. I just don't feel like worrying about something that's usually a phantom not real problem in the end. 

[mitchnick]

27 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I am not picking on your post, you may be correct in identifying those years, but I would offer the counter point that identifying enso as the sole dominant factor to determine analog years is both risky (when the signal is so weak) and very limiting in producing enough years to have any statistical significance. 

Those 3 are good matches looking only at enso but all 3 have some pretty significant difference in other pattern drivers. Just looking at the qbo all 3 were east based in January. 84 started west in dec and was transitioning east all winter. None are a good arch in that way.

Back in November when I was looking at analogs all 3 made my first list when I first used enso to identify years but none of them made the final cut because they had so many contradictions in other pattern drivers. I think the pdo state, PAC sst outside enso regions, and Atlantic/amo as well as solar were mostly bad matches compared to other years that maybe weren't perfect enso matches but more similar overall. 

Choosing how to weight analogs is tricky. I don't know if following a super Nino is a significant enough factor to outweigh others. Not enough data to be conclusive. I tend to weight enso as a significant factor but not the end all that dominates all others at all times. A string enso signal is one of the most significant factors we can have though. 

If we use enso alone then yes the analogs look bad. If we use a more holistic grading to select analogs they look better. I don't know which is the way to go. 

Considering those years were all weak wrt snowfall in December and January, odds favor them this year so far imho.

[psuhoffman]

45 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

Considering those years were all weak wrt snowfall in December and January, odds favor them this year so far imho.

Good point. I'm not sure how much bad luck is involved though. It's not been good by any stretch. But we had a workable mid December period and a pretty good early January window and missed every shot. Places in almost every direction are at least close to climo on snow. We're in the hole.  Some of that's rotten luck. But I can't discount it either. I will say the coming pattern looks more promising so we have that at least.