Winter 2017-18 Disco

[WxUSAF]

28 minutes ago, showmethesnow said:

Now that the confusion over the years is cleared up, fingers crossed, hopefully I now have the correct composites. But as you said until we start narrowing the goal posts these composites are more for entertainment sake then anything else. 

 

 

That looks more like I would expect. Pray for blocking.

[showmethesnow]

1 minute ago, WxUSAF said:

That looks more like I would expect. Pray for blocking.

Same here. Cringed when I started pulling them up.

[dmillz25]

31 minutes ago, WxUSAF said:

That looks more like I would expect. Pray for blocking.

Im sorry but aren't those composites showing blocking?

[uncle W]

3 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

The difference between KDCA and KNYC is less than the difference between KNYC and KBOS. The former gap is like 11" per season and latter is around 17" per season. So it is less unusual to get less snow than DCA.

 

It's also a lot colder than I'd expect this winter. It is really hard to get cold in February in the eastern US in La Nina. You probably have to go back to Feb 1972 to get a truly cold February during La Nina...there's some borderline below avg temps in years like Feb 1996 and 1974...and New England had weak below average temps in Feb 2011...but it was warmer than normal south of there. Feb 1985 was cold in the SE but warm in the Northeast...prob around avg near DC.

they updated the oni tables again...1962-63 and 1967-68 used to be la nina years about 15 years ago...now they have been updated to weak negatives...pretty soon they will be el ninos...anyway Feb. 63 and Feb 68 were quite cold with March being the warm month...

http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

[showmethesnow]

11 minutes ago, dmillz25 said:

Im sorry but aren't those composites showing blocking?

Yeah they are for the most part. But the rest of the pattern is pretty crappy. If that blocking it now shows doesn't show up we would have a long depressing winter as we contend with the rest of the pattern. Hence, pray for blocking.

[ORH_wxman]

1 hour ago, uncle W said:

they updated the oni tables again...1962-63 and 1967-68 used to be la nina years about 15 years ago...now they have been updated to weak negatives...pretty soon they will be el ninos...anyway Feb. 63 and Feb 68 were quite cold with March being the warm month...

http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

Yeah some of the 1960s ninas had cold Februarys. The 1960s are always a tricky analog for me though...there was an exceptional combination of -PDO/mount agung eruption/-AO pattern that seemed to make that decade so cold and so consistent. The variance of winter temps in the '60s is so much smaller than any other decade. That decade does provide some good insight when studying blocking (because there was so much of it) but using ENSO itself is always a risk...unless it was a strong event such as '65-'66 which behaved pretty much like a normal high end moderate El Niño. The weak Niños in the late 60s acted like La Niña at times. Esp '68-'69. 

[uncle W]

26 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah some of the 1960s ninas had cold Februarys. The 1960s are always a tricky analog for me though...there was an exceptional combination of -PDO/mount agung eruption/-AO pattern that seemed to make that decade so cold and so consistent. The variance of winter temps in the '60s is so much smaller than any other decade. That decade does provide some good insight when studying blocking (because there was so much of it) but using ENSO itself is always a risk...unless it was a strong event such as '65-'66 which behaved pretty much like a normal high end moderate El Niño. The weak Niños in the late 60s acted like La Niña at times. Esp '68-'69. 

some 60's years had a negative nao or ao all winter...1959-60 had a -AO from 12/25-4/4...a -nao from 2/8-2/29...1962-63 had a negative nao from 12/22-2/23...a neg ao from 12/23-2/23...

[WinterWxLuvr]

3 hours ago, showmethesnow said:

Now that the confusion over the years is cleared up, fingers crossed, hopefully I now have the correct composites. But as you said until we start narrowing the goal posts these composites are more for entertainment sake then anything else. 

 

Dec-Feb

Dec

Jan

Feb

 

November/March

Are these supposed to be enso matches?  If so, I don't think many are good matches.

I think 67-68, 74-75, 84-85, 99-00, and 11-12 are the best enso matches when you look at the 2 year period that preceded them.

[uncle W]

15 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

Are these supposed to be enso matches?  If so, I don't think many are good matches.

I think 67-68, 74-75, 84-85, 99-00, and 11-12 are the best enso matches when you look at the 2 year period that preceded them.

each one of these years had a few moments of glory...2011-12 came in October...the other years had a two week period of either very cold temps or most of the seasonal snowfall...1967-68 had the only December that resembled a normal one...I like 67-68 as an analog but I doubt it will be as cold as that year...

[showmethesnow]

5 hours ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

Are these supposed to be enso matches?  If so, I don't think many are good matches.

I think 67-68, 74-75, 84-85, 99-00, and 11-12 are the best enso matches when you look at the 2 year period that preceded them.

These were pulled from PSU's chart further up in the thread. He had used cold neutral to moderate Nina values for the ENSO without any regard for prior year/s ENSO values. 

[showmethesnow]

6 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah some of the 1960s ninas had cold Februarys. The 1960s are always a tricky analog for me though...there was an exceptional combination of -PDO/mount agung eruption/-AO pattern that seemed to make that decade so cold and so consistent. The variance of winter temps in the '60s is so much smaller than any other decade. That decade does provide some good insight when studying blocking (because there was so much of it) but using ENSO itself is always a risk...unless it was a strong event such as '65-'66 which behaved pretty much like a normal high end moderate El Niño. The weak Niños in the late 60s acted like La Niña at times. Esp '68-'69. 

Reading a little of your back and forth with Uncle it sounds as if the 60's were an aberration. If that is the case should we even be using them? 

[showmethesnow]

3 hours ago, BTRWx said:

I'd suggest we mostly focus on fewer years with most of the data sets.  It might be a personal preference, but using that many years for a single variable might give some wacky results imo.  For enso seasons in particular, all the years works great to see if other variables (regional temp anomalies for example) puts other scenarios in play to hone in on, but generally I think less analog years allows better correlation for the pattern of interest.

He actually used 2 variables, -Enso and a -PDO which are the major drivers in regards to the Pacific. Though I would like to see the values with these 2 narrowed somewhat they should still give us a fairly good read on what the state of the Pacific will be irregardless of the other indices. So I am not really sure having such a large set with open ended values on some of the indices that affect our neck of the woods matters that much when looking upstream. Now downstream of the Pacific is another story. Without narrowing the goal posts on NAO/AO we are pretty much flying blind and anything being spit out by the composite for the eastern half of the US is probably useless. Now maybe the QBO will play a role in everything but I am not going to even pretend I know anything about it so I left it out of the discussion.

So in other words. Everything is pointing to a hostile Pacific and we need to pray for blocking to have any hope of overcoming it.

[showmethesnow]

7 hours ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

Are these supposed to be enso matches?  If so, I don't think many are good matches.

I think 67-68, 74-75, 84-85, 99-00, and 11-12 are the best enso matches when you look at the 2 year period that preceded them.

[Bob Chill]

^ I hope 18-19 is good. lol

[BTRWx]

5 hours ago, showmethesnow said:

He actually used 2 variables, -Enso and a -PDO which are the major drivers in regards to the Pacific. Though I would like to see the values with these 2 narrowed somewhat they should still give us a fairly good read on what the state of the Pacific will be irregardless of the other indices. So I am not really sure having such a large set with open ended values on some of the indices that affect our neck of the woods matters that much when looking upstream. Now downstream of the Pacific is another story. Without narrowing the goal posts on NAO/AO we are pretty much flying blind and anything being spit out by the composite for the eastern half of the US is probably useless. Now maybe the QBO will play a role in everything but I am not going to even pretend I know anything about it so I left it out of the discussion.

So in other words. Everything is pointing to a hostile Pacific and we need to pray for blocking to have any hope of overcoming it.

I completely agree.  Good analyses there!

[mitchnick]

1 hour ago, Bob Chill said:

^ I hope 18-19 is good. lol

Why? The last few days the CFS2 has been heading right where we want it at this point.....furnace NOV and DEC!    lol

[showmethesnow]

1 hour ago, Bob Chill said:

^ I hope 18-19 is good. lol

You should pull out your crystal ball, errrr, the ultra fantasy range GFS and see if blocking is showing up.

Actually looked at uncle's 67-68 winter and it matched up fairly well currently. Not to say it will 2 months from now though. Think there would be a bunch of happy campers if that were to come close to verifying this year. 

[mitchnick]

4 minutes ago, showmethesnow said:

You should pull out your crystal ball, errrr, the ultra fantasy range GFS and see if blocking is showing up.

Actually looked at uncle's 67-68 winter and it matched up fairly well currently. Not to say it will 2 months from now though. Think there would be a bunch of happy campers if that were to come close to verifying this year. 

I remember the snow storm in December, 1967; largest of the season. We had school and the snow started around 9AM and they let us out around Noon during the height of the storm. If that happened now, the school boards would be strung up and tortured. I still remember that nightmare ride home from school up Ritchie Highway from Arnold in a 1966 Chevy Impala. What a boat, and with rear wheel drive no less.

[ORH_wxman]

7 hours ago, showmethesnow said:

Reading a little of your back and forth with Uncle it sounds as if the 60's were an aberration. If that is the case should we even be using them? 

I would weight them less. I wouldn't say ignore them completely though. Especially during periods when we are locked into a strong -PDO. They are def decent analogs for a -PDO/-NAO winter...kind of like what we saw in 2010-2011 or to a lesser extent 2008-2009. The Agung eruption really influenced the 1963-1965 period though IMHO so i think t is good to keep that in mind. Prob similar to being careful with 1992-1994 after pinatubo. 

[WVclimo]

Mt Agung is poised to possibly erupt again:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-22/mt-agung-bali-volcanoo-hundreds-evacuated-amid-eruption-fears/8976224

[showmethesnow]

10 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

I would weight them less. I wouldn't say ignore them completely though. Especially during periods when we are locked into a strong -PDO. They are def decent analogs for a -PDO/-NAO winter...kind of like what we saw in 2010-2011 or to a lesser extent 2008-2009. The Agung eruption really influenced the 1963-1965 period though IMHO so i think t is good to keep that in mind. Prob similar to being careful with 1992-1994 after pinatubo. 

So you are saying we should include a volcano index along with the solar?

Can you actually weigh certain yrs when you are creating a composite? 

[uncle W]

Feb 68 was cold and dry...I doubt it could get this cold without snow in todays climate...

[BTRWx]

16 minutes ago, WVclimo said:

Mt Agung is poised to possibly erupt again:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-22/mt-agung-bali-volcanoo-hundreds-evacuated-amid-eruption-fears/8976224

Love the Irony!

[psuhoffman]

11 hours ago, BTRWx said:

I'd suggest we mostly focus on fewer years with most of the data sets.  It might be a personal preference, but using that many years for a single variable might give some wacky results imo.  For enso seasons in particular, all the years works great to see if other variables (regional temp anomalies for example) puts other scenarios in play to hone in on, but generally I think less analog years allows better correlation for the pattern of interest.

Using a larger data set does create some problems, but at this stage I am not sure we can really narrow down the possible analogs with any accuracy yet.  I pulled them based on the two base states we can feel fairly comfortable with at this time.  Later in the fall when other aspects of the pattern present themselves we can probably start narrowing the list and then a better idea of what were looking at could emerge. 

8 hours ago, showmethesnow said:

These were pulled from PSU's chart further up in the thread. He had used cold neutral to moderate Nina values for the ENSO without any regard for prior year/s ENSO values. 

If we start narrowing the list be every little thing we would end up with no useful analogs.  There are definitely better matches by ENSO, but then there are better ones by PDO, AMO, QBO, on and on.  So I just wanted to give the full range of what is possible.  Once we know where the pattern is going in late fall we can knock some of these analogs off the list. 

8 hours ago, showmethesnow said:

Reading a little of your back and forth with Uncle it sounds as if the 60's were an aberration. If that is the case should we even be using them? 

I agree the 60's could throw things off because of the historically abnormal -NAO.  But if we remove the 60's ugh, our analog list starts to look really ugly. 

7 hours ago, showmethesnow said:

He actually used 2 variables, -Enso and a -PDO which are the major drivers in regards to the Pacific. Though I would like to see the values with these 2 narrowed somewhat they should still give us a fairly good read on what the state of the Pacific will be irregardless of the other indices. So I am not really sure having such a large set with open ended values on some of the indices that affect our neck of the woods matters that much when looking upstream. Now downstream of the Pacific is another story. Without narrowing the goal posts on NAO/AO we are pretty much flying blind and anything being spit out by the composite for the eastern half of the US is probably useless. Now maybe the QBO will play a role in everything but I am not going to even pretend I know anything about it so I left it out of the discussion.

So in other words. Everything is pointing to a hostile Pacific and we need to pray for blocking to have any hope of overcoming it.

That's where I am with this.  The data bears it out clearly, no NAO help and our snow chances will be about zero.  This is not a pattern we can luck our way to snow with an unfavorable NAO.  So it comes down to that.  But the data is inconclusive about the likely NAO outcome.  There seems to be little correlation during similar years between the factors we know and the NAO outcome.  To be honest I am feeling a bit pessimistic though.  Some are hanging their hat on the QBO/Solar thing but during -PDO/cold Enso there seems to be no increased chances of a -NAO due to those two factors.  Additionally the majority of the "better" years on the list were during the 1960s or a while ago and perhaps not as pertinent to the climate pattern we are in now.  There is definitely some cyclical nature to these patterns.  Its does not lend me confidence when the most recent examples of these type winters all sucked.  Add in the NAO having been hostile for a while and I just am not feeling the love right now.  That could all change in a month based on how the pattern starts to show itself but as of right now I am leaning towards the less exciting analogs.  JMHO

[das]

17 hours ago, showmethesnow said:

Yeah they are for the most part. But the rest of the pattern is pretty crappy. If that blocking it now shows doesn't show up we would have a long depressing winter as we contend with the rest of the pattern. Hence, pray for blocking.

How's the snowcover in Siberia looking leading up to Oct 1st?

Sorry, I could not resist....................

[Bob Chill]

4 minutes ago, das said:

How's the snowcover in Siberia looking leading up to Oct 1st?

Sorry, I could not resist....................

After the last 3 years....hopefully sunny and 70! lol

[WinterWxLuvr]

2 hours ago, Bob Chill said:

^ I hope 18-19 is good. lol

That doesn't look that bad, does it?

[Bob Chill]

1 minute ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

That doesn't look that bad, does it?

No blocking and a -pna doesn't excite me too much I guess. 

[das]

16 minutes ago, Bob Chill said:

After the last 3 years....hopefully sunny and 70! lol

All kidding aside, if ever there was an opportunity for rapid snowcover growth in the region during October, this year may be it.  It's pretty barren over there leading up to the 1st.  

[snowman19]

57 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Using a larger data set does create some problems, but at this stage I am not sure we can really narrow down the possible analogs with any accuracy yet.  I pulled them based on the two base states we can feel fairly comfortable with at this time.  Later in the fall when other aspects of the pattern present themselves we can probably start narrowing the list and then a better idea of what were looking at could emerge. 

If we start narrowing the list be every little thing we would end up with no useful analogs.  There are definitely better matches by ENSO, but then there are better ones by PDO, AMO, QBO, on and on.  So I just wanted to give the full range of what is possible.  Once we know where the pattern is going in late fall we can knock some of these analogs off the list. 

I agree the 60's could throw things off because of the historically abnormal -NAO.  But if we remove the 60's ugh, our analog list starts to look really ugly. 

That's where I am with this.  The data bears it out clearly, no NAO help and our snow chances will be about zero.  This is not a pattern we can luck our way to snow with an unfavorable NAO.  So it comes down to that.  But the data is inconclusive about the likely NAO outcome.  There seems to be little correlation during similar years between the factors we know and the NAO outcome.  To be honest I am feeling a bit pessimistic though.  Some are hanging their hat on the QBO/Solar thing but during -PDO/cold Enso there seems to be no increased chances of a -NAO due to those two factors.  Additionally the majority of the "better" years on the list were during the 1960s or a while ago and perhaps not as pertinent to the climate pattern we are in now.  There is definitely some cyclical nature to these patterns.  Its does not lend me confidence when the most recent examples of these type winters all sucked.  Add in the NAO having been hostile for a while and I just am not feeling the love right now.  That could all change in a month based on how the pattern starts to show itself but as of right now I am leaning towards the less exciting analogs.  JMHO

Good post. I’m looking at it this way, if, come mid to late November we are still looking at the same Pacific setup (La Niña and -PDO), then we will definitely need arctic (-AO) and North Atlantic (-NAO) blocking or things will get very very ugly for everyone on the east coast. Niña and -PDO strongly argue for -PNA/RNA and a SE Ridge. The only hope at that point would be a solidly negative NAM (-AO and -NAO) or we will be in huge trouble. I’m not buying into the whole -QBO and low solar means high latitude blocking argument. You’ve already totally disproven that argument