February 2018 Discussions & Observations Thread

[Brian5671]

2 minutes ago, 495weatherguy said:

Legitimate question here, didn’t February look promising as well?  Many of the top posters in this forum were sold on a cold and snowy month.   What is different about the pattern now vs mid to late January?

MJO is favorable and we have -AO, -NAO.    Feb busted in part b/c the MJO got stuck in an unfavorable phase amongst other things...

[NJwx85]

The main difference between the upcoming threat and previous threats this season is the strong blocking. Suppression can always be a concern but I'll take my chances.

This has a chance to be an exceptionally long duration snowstorm. Think Snowicane.

[MJO812]

6 minutes ago, NJwx85 said:

The main difference between the upcoming threat and previous threats this season is the strong blocking. Suppression can always be a concern but I'll take my chances.

This has a chance to be an exceptionally long duration snowstorm. Think Snowicane.

Snowicane was 24 hours

The blizzard in Jan 2016 was around 30 hours here.

[NJwx85]

1 minute ago, Snow88 said:

Snowicane was 24 hours

The blizzard in Jan 2016 was around 30 hours here.

Are you referring to the storm that missed the Western 1/3rd of the forum and only grazed the city? Or the storm last March which was long duration but delivered at least some snow to everyone?

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, PB COLTS NECK NJ said:

 

Chris,  these are literally off the charts 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, the 500 mb charts are indicating a +5 SD blocking event between Iceland and Greenland. I can't remember the last  time anomalies were  +534 meters in that spot. We went 500+ meters in the NPAC earlier in the season. Add the historic SE ridge this week and it equals very extreme 500 mb behavior.

 

 

 

[donsutherland1]

26 minutes ago, 495weatherguy said:

Legitimate question here, didn’t February look promising as well?  Many of the top posters in this forum were sold on a cold and snowy month.   What is different about the pattern now vs mid to late January?

Speaking only for myself with respect to what will prove to be a spectacularly busted forecast (February will have a mean temperature close to 42° compared to my thinking of around 34° and 4.9" snow compared to my thinking of 12"-18" in NYC), here's what went wrong for me.

1. Given the record high MJO amplitude and relaxation of the trade winds hinting at a decay in the La Niña, uncertainty was much greater than normal.

2. There were hints that the forecast EPO/AO/PNA blocking might not develop just ahead of February. Given the uncertainty, I chose to maintain continuity with the guidance suggesting such blocking would develop. That the MJO was forecast to move into Phase 8 and then 1 coupled with the high degree of uncertainty suggested caution in embracing the change in the guidance. I waited until a week into the month before writing off the somewhat colder than normal scenario. In hindsight, I probably should have gone with "equal chances" given the degree of uncertainty and slashed the snowfall idea to near normal. At least that way, the error would have been reduced.

It turned out that the MJO did not move into Phase 8 until February 19. Further, consistent with the recent tendency for weather conditions to go to extremes, the warmth turned out even more pronounced than had been modeled. The historic warmth of February 21 is the highlight of the month's extremes. The warmth was the equivalent of a 109° July temperature in Central Park. The warmth will prove sufficient so that winter 2017-18 will wind up warmer than normal in much of the East on average.

Long-range forecasting remains difficult. Uncertainty overall is great. Teleconnections and the MJO cannot be forecast with much reliability in the medium-range, much less the long-range. Downstream patterns may not always respond to the MJO either or a lagged response could vary in timing. Not too surprisingly, I had an enormously bad idea for February. The assumption that the uncertainty from the record-high MJO amplitude and hints of a decaying La Niña had led to a transient shift in the guidance led to a catastrophically bad February idea.

The error is mine.

This time around, there is less uncertainty concerning the pattern evolution into March. The biggest uncertainty concerns details that will need to be resolved for specific events. The overall pattern to begin the month is more certain than it was in February.

[PB COLTS NECK NJ]

21 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Yeah, the 500 mb charts are indicating a +5 SD blocking event between Iceland and Greenland. I can't remember the last  time anomalies were  +534 meters in that spot. We went 500+ meters in the NPAC earlier in the season. Add the historic SE ridge this week and it equals very extreme 500 mb behavior.

 

 

 

 

These are robust and some cases record breaking anomalies.

Lining up the upcoming 500mb pattern against snowmagedon you can see how close they are.

I don't know yet who is going to get crushed,  but I don't think the EC walks away from this potential snowless.

You can see the potential lining up for someone.

[psv88]

8 minutes ago, PB COLTS NECK NJ said:

 

These are robust and some cases record breaking anomalies.

Lining up the upcoming 500mb pattern against snowmagedon you can see how close they are.

I don't know yet who is going to get crushed,  but I don't think the EC walks away from this potential snowless.

You can see the potential lining up for someone.

And that is my concern. Not to beat a dead horse, but too much blocking is no bueno. What we have going for us is that the blocking is coming in March. The southern latitudes are heating up which should beat back the confluence a bit. What you dont see on those anomaly maps is any semblance of a SE ridge which could help us out here. 

I am pretty confident that somewhere along the EC will see some snow from this pattern, but based on the strength of the block, i believe we need to wait until it moves out, so i like the March 7th time frame better.

[PB COLTS NECK NJ]

23 minutes ago, psv88 said:

And that is my concern. Not to beat a dead horse, but too much blocking is no bueno. What we have going for us is that the blocking is coming in March. The southern latitudes are heating up which should beat back the confluence a bit. What you dont see on those anomaly maps is any semblance of a SE ridge which could help us out here. 

I am pretty confident that somewhere along the EC will see some snow from this pattern, but based on the strength of the block, i believe we need to wait until it moves out, so i like the March 7th time frame better.

 

I agree with this.

[PB COLTS NECK NJ]

11 minutes ago, bluewave said:

In addition to the snow potential, the full moon is on March 2nd with some of the highest astronomical tides of March. 

 

I think the pattern stays favorable through mid month, I haven't honed in on the exact time frame. 

Too much chaos for the models to see this correctly 10 days out 

[NEG NAO]

1 hour ago, NJwx85 said:

The main difference between the upcoming threat and previous threats this season is the strong blocking. Suppression can always be a concern but I'll take my chances.

This has a chance to be an exceptionally long duration snowstorm. Think Snowicane.

Curb Your Enthusiam - still no indications of  having more then a light to moderate snowfall on most guidance as of 12Z 

 

[forkyfork]

coastal flooding is a bigger threat than snow

[White Gorilla]

Let's keep expectations minimal and  reasonable for now to avoid hype and possible disappointment, but the pattern definitely looks promising. Should be very interesting to track. 

[NEG NAO]

6 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

coastal flooding is a bigger threat than snow

The 1962 Analog

[snowman19]

I can easily see us getting through the early March (3/1-3/10) period with minimal snow and just normal temps before we loose the blocking and torch starting around mid March

[NEG NAO]

9 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Yeah, such strong Atlantic blocking events usually impact the pattern for at least 2 weeks. One of the hardest things for models to do is resolve individual storm details under retrograding blocks. The model swings alone will probably be very entertaining.

So far the 12Z models have been weird and boring upcoming runs should feature bizarre storm tracks

[swamplover56]

1 minute ago, snowman19 said:

I can easily see us getting through the early March (3/1-3/10) period with minimal snow and just normal temps before we loose the blocking and torch starting around mid March

I think I speak for the entire board saying we are shocked

[NEG NAO]

3 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

I can easily see us getting through the early March (3/1-3/10) period with minimal snow and just normal temps before we loose the blocking and torch starting around mid March

There is still no indication there will be any torching starting mid month - remember long range guidance tends to break down blocking patterns too fast 

[snowman19]

Just now, NEG NAO said:

There is still no indication there will be any torching starting mid month - remember long range guidance tends to break down blocking patterns too fast 

All guidance has the North Pacific ridge retrograding and the -NAO breaking down. That is a big torch signal come mid March. The CFS is getting warmer and warmer with each run for March and we are merely days away now. As far as the early March pattern, it’s not cold, it’s just normal early March temps. There is no arctic air anywhere near us. Cold air is going to be a problem for March 1-10. A real big problem. There is a very good possibility we come out of it with very little snow despite all the hype

[NEG NAO]

3 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

All guidance has the North Pacific ridge retrograding and the -NAO breaking down. That is a big torch signal come mid March. The CFS is getting warmer and warmer with each run for March and we are merely days away now. As far as the early March pattern, it’s not cold, it’s just normal early March temps. There is no arctic air anywhere near us. Cold air is going to be a problem for March 1-10. A real big problem. There is a very good possibility we come out of it with very little snow despite all the hype

Didn't we learn anything from what happened with the guidance from January that led us down the wrong road in February ? Can't trust it in such a volatile pattern this time around

[Brian5671]

23 minutes ago, swamplover56 said:

I think I speak for the entire board saying we are shocked

 (although I agree with his concern about lack of cold air for 3/1-3/10.)  Lack of good cold could also affect the strength of any low as well, let alone snow chances-needs a stronger low to bomb and produce strong lift which would then produce snow if the airmass was marginal...a weak storm will not cut it.

[White Gorilla]

11 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

All guidance has the North Pacific ridge retrograding and the -NAO breaking down. That is a big torch signal come mid March. The CFS is getting warmer and warmer with each run for March and we are merely days away now. As far as the early March pattern, it’s not cold, it’s just normal early March temps. There is no arctic air anywhere near us. Cold air is going to be a problem for March 1-10. A real big problem. There is a very good possibility we come out of it with very little snow despite all the hype

Your posts are very predictable 

[snowman19]

7 minutes ago, Brian5671 said:

 (although I agree with his concern about lack of cold air for 3/1-3/10.)  Lack of good cold could also affect the strength of any low as well, let alone snow chances-needs a stronger low to bomb and produce strong lift which would produce snow...

Yes. The cold isn’t there for 3/1-3/10. You will need a low to absolutely bomb and dynamically cool the column with strong UVVs to get snow

[Brian5671]

27 minutes ago, NEG NAO said:

There is still no indication there will be any torching starting mid month - remember long range guidance tends to break down blocking patterns too fast 

it's too bad this blocking didn't happen 3-4 weeks earlier.  With limited cold air heading into March-we may just be looking at a March 2010 type pattern-rainstorms and 35-40 degrees.

[NEG NAO]

8 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

Yes. The cold isn’t there for 3/1-3/10. You will need a low to absolutely bomb and dynamically cool the column with strong UVVs to get snow

March 20 -22 , 1958 - 15 inches snow in NYC temps remained just above freezing 90 % of the storm - here is the Newark info

https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KEWR/1958/3/20/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA&reqdb.zip=&reqdb.magic=&reqdb.wmo=

[PB COLTS NECK NJ]

44 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

I can easily see us getting through the early March (3/1-3/10) period with minimal snow and just normal temps before we loose the blocking and torch starting around mid March

This will be a stormy period,we don't want a vortex underneath or you would push everything off the SE coast.

Breaking down ? That's gona look like thru the 15th , that's plenty of time.

[NJwx85]

1 hour ago, NEG NAO said:

Curb Your Enthusiam - still no indications of  having more then a light to moderate snowfall on most guidance as of 12Z 

 

LOL at even looking at accumulations on a day 10 forecast.

[NJwx85]

16 minutes ago, Brian5671 said:

it's too bad this blocking didn't happen 3-4 weeks earlier.  With limited cold air heading into March-we may just be looking at a March 2010 type pattern-rainstorms and 35-40 degrees.

I would take a March 2010 redux over a blizzard anyday. Still my number three favorite storm of all time behind Irene and 96'.

[PB COLTS NECK NJ]

35 minutes ago, Brian5671 said:

 (although I agree with his concern about lack of cold air for 3/1-3/10.)  Lack of good cold could also affect the strength of any low as well, let alone snow chances-needs a stronger low to bomb and produce strong lift which would then produce snow if the airmass was marginal...a weak storm will not cut it.

 

Cold enough after the 5th 

[NJwx85]

Looks like a major storm coming up on the 12z Euro run, with 50/50 block in place and big piece of energy trying to undercut.