The Mystical Month of February--Long Range Discussion

[Jandurin]

"I went back and looked. I made 4 posts. One dismissing the op. One saying the gefs was mostly ambiguous, conflicted, and useless. Pretty neutral. Then one pointing out the pressure pattern trend that wasn’t good with one paragraph of analysis and a comparison plot.  Then the last post I carefully pointed out that I didn’t put any stock into the gefs just pointing out it wasn’t a good run imo but I would reserve any judgement until after the whole overnight guidance came in.  That was it. "

I think if your posts had been this short there would've been no comment

that's might be a bigger commentary on leesburg than you tho

[Jandurin]

the bigger issue at hand here is the models have been sucking at patterns and long range so over analyzing slightly different outcomes or ambiguities seems pointless

 

if they go full "winter's over torchfest on" and they all do it, that's meaningful, but if they're just waffling then whatever

 

but i don't really feel like you should be censured for digging in either

[AfewUniversesBelowNormal]

This is pretty insane for El Nino. (STJ over Hawaii fits.)

http://mp1.met.psu.edu/~fxg1/ENSHGTAVGNH_6z/ensloopmref.html

[CAPE]

14 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

Look past the colors on those anomaly maps and often there’s very little or slight differences in the actual height lines.

Also the MJO forecasts have been awful. They can’t even get one day right.

This is a good point. I usually also look at the standard h5 height maps without the anomalies.

[Ji]

That’s still yesterday’s run. Lol 

Cache

[AfewUniversesBelowNormal]

3 hours ago, showmethesnow said:

 

 

  ETA: Forgot I had one last map. We are seeing lower pressures to our south and through the gulf states for quite an extended period of time. Starting at day 9 and running through the whole extended. Very good sign and exactly where we want to see them showing up.

 

How do you post these maps after two Winter's of this? ECMWF EPS was showing +PNA-south all Winter and a different -NAO.. pretty big fail. (I appreciate your posting though... EPS is a bad model.) 

[showmethesnow]

25 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Not criticizing you and leesburgs criticism just trying to understand. I can’t fix what I honestly don’t see.  I thought I was limiting my negatives. Last night I kept my analysis of the gefs brief (by my standards) with only a couple posts and a paragraph each.  And the gfs op I basically dismissed.  When things are good I often write up 3 pages of analysis and dig deep. When it’s bad I try to keep it to a paragraph and move on. But I do still like to analyze and get into what’s wrong to understand the good AND the bad. No one complains when there is a page on how great it looks but a paragraph on what’s wrong is too much?  

I went back and looked. I made 4 posts. One dismissing the op. One saying the gefs was mostly ambiguous, conflicted, and useless. Pretty neutral. Then one pointing out the pressure pattern trend that wasn’t good with one paragraph of analysis and a comparison plot.  Then the last post I carefully pointed out that I didn’t put any stock into the gefs just pointing out it wasn’t a good run imo but I would reserve any judgement until after the whole overnight guidance came in.  That was it. 

This isn’t a criticism of you or leesburg. Others have said the same thing. And not just this year, many times over the years. The problem is obviously me. But I can’t fix it because I don’t see it.

At times I thought I was being careful to not overdo it with bad stuff. I edited what would have been my typical 3 pages down to 1. I used innocuous words. I tried to qualify things. And still had people tell me I’m being too negative. 

So im trying to use last night as a case study so I can see what I’m doing wrong. What exactly did I do in those 4 posts that rubbed people the wrong way?  I honestly thought I was keeping it benign and pretty neutral. I’m honestly not trying to be defensive I truly don’t understand and I want to so I can analyze the negative stuff but without getting this reaction. 

Yes, you were somewhat sparing last night with the negative postings I thought. But you have to look at it as a whole. The last couple of weeks you have been hammering the negatives with post after post so that now people just see this as a continuation of a pattern of behavior. It also doesn't help that you are continually getting into debates with these same people over their objections. All this does is to continually hammer home the fact that you do not like what the model/s showed. Best bet is probably to step back a touch, voice any concerns about a run with a post or two and then move on ignoring any criticisms that may follow.

eta: To clarify, ignore criticisms but engaging in debates over differing points of view on the run is fair game. That is after all what this thread is about.

[CAPE]

1 minute ago, Ji said:

Cache

As long as it doesn't try to reemerge in ph5 I am good with it hanging around the COD.

[Maestrobjwa]

8 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

At times I thought I was being careful to not overdo it with bad stuff. I edited what would have been my typical 3 pages down to 1. I used innocuous words. I tried to qualify things. And still had people tell me I’m being too negative. 

So im trying to use last night as a case study so I can see what I’m doing wrong. What exactly did I do in those 4 posts that rubbed people the wrong way?  I honestly thought I was keeping it benign and pretty neutral. I’m honestly not trying to be defensive I truly don’t understand and I want to so I can analyze the negative stuff but without getting this reaction. 

I get that...and perhaps my criticism last night wasn't the most fair. I think it could be that a lot of the forum leans heavily on you, Bob, and Showme's posts to get a feel for where things are...and when you guys say something like "I don't like" or "concern" it's amplified. Not fair since you guys only post your opinion about what you are seeing, but....that may be the reason for the reactions (including mine...I know I kinda go as you guys go since I'm a novice at all this, lol). It could be just deciphering your level of concern with one run versus the bigger picture...Often if you post what you don't like about something, I get a clearer picture when another chimes in about whether it may or may not be that bad overall. (and even you have had to walk back at times and clarify "I'm only talking about one run"--could you be going too much negative analysis on run one? Maybe. Or, the rest of us could just do better at realizing the bigger picture, lol)

[snowmagnet]

This may be a bit of banter, but whatever. I love the amazing job of analysis on here by several different people. That’s why so many of us spend much of the day reading this forum.  Obviously this Science isn’t an exact Science or Mets would be able to accurately predict the temperature and amount of rain or snow on a daily basis.  I interpret for a living (American Sign Language).  Interpreters are notorious for judging other interpreters because they would have done it differently.  But often there are MANY correct interpretations based on the input! Basically everyone on here is interpreting the computer patterns, NAO, and 500 mb charts, etc., based on one’s perspective.  And some people will judge and criticize because they see things differently or just don’t like the input that the computer models give out.  I know that a lot of people have skin in the game because they predicted a snowy winter, but Weather will do what it wants, no matter what we want.  All of that to say... I really appreciate the variety of analysis and opportunity to learn from some really talented people.  I will continue to be optimistic that we will have a snowy February, regardless of the long range because we have generally overperformed pretty well. And we really only need a really good pattern set up for a short time to give us something like Jan ‘16. 

[Ralph Wiggum]

22 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Not criticizing you and leesburgs criticism just trying to understand. I can’t fix what I honestly don’t see.  I thought I was limiting my negatives. Last night I kept my analysis of the gefs brief (by my standards) with only a couple posts and a paragraph each.  And the gfs op I basically dismissed.  When things are good I often write up 3 pages of analysis and dig deep. When it’s bad I try to keep it to a paragraph and move on. But I do still like to analyze and get into what’s wrong to understand the good AND the bad. No one complains when there is a page on how great it looks but a paragraph on what’s wrong is too much?  

I went back and looked. I made 4 posts. One dismissing the op. One saying the gefs was mostly ambiguous, conflicted, and useless. Pretty neutral. Then one pointing out the pressure pattern trend that wasn’t good with one paragraph of analysis and a comparison plot.  Then the last post I carefully pointed out that I didn’t put any stock into the gefs just pointing out it wasn’t a good run imo but I would reserve any judgement until after the whole overnight guidance came in.  That was it. 

This isn’t a criticism of you or leesburg. Others have said the same thing. And not just this year, many times over the years. The problem is obviously me. But I can’t fix it because I don’t see it.

At times I thought I was being careful to not overdo it with bad stuff. I edited what would have been my typical 3 pages down to 1. I used innocuous words. I tried to qualify things. And still had people tell me I’m being too negative. 

So im trying to use last night as a case study so I can see what I’m doing wrong. What exactly did I do in those 4 posts that rubbed people the wrong way?  I honestly thought I was keeping it benign and pretty neutral. I’m honestly not trying to be defensive I truly don’t understand and I want to so I can analyze the negative stuff but without getting this reaction. 

You're not doing anything 'wrong'. My only take is sometimes I feel your posts turn more into a debate (it's in your DNA as a debate team coach.....I get that) and less of a back-forth discussion. Almost defensive at times if you will. We can all be a bit guilty of that tho. Keep posting I enjoy your reads.

[AfewUniversesBelowNormal]

Major pattern change coming. 

[jaydreb]

We desperately need something midrange to track! We’ve gone from discussing the pattern to discussing how we discuss the pattern.  I appreciate all of PSU’s posts -positive and negative.  Unfortunately, he’s seeing the -NAO signal getting more muted and pushed back in time when we need the opposite.  

[Jandurin]

midrange

[Superstorm]

Major pattern change coming. 

I hope your right.


.

[Wonderdog]

8 minutes ago, jaydreb said:

We desperately need something midrange to track! We’ve gone from discussing the pattern to discussing how we discuss the pattern.  I appreciate all of PSU’s posts -positive and negative.  Unfortunately, he’s seeing the -NAO signal getting more muted and pushed back in time when we need the opposite.  

This is the warm-up week. We've known this for days. Nothing to get excited about until late next weekend. 

[AfewUniversesBelowNormal]

3 minutes ago, Superstorm said:

I hope your right.


.

I hope I'm wrong lol. You can already kind of see it today (sun angle). 

[psuhoffman]

24 minutes ago, Ji said:

Cache

I knew what happened I was just teasing you. 

Here’s the gfs...this is actually better too

According to Don S high amp 7 correlates to a -AO.  Low amp 7 doesn’t.  So there is good and bad on both but they both get to a good place at the end.  

My mini melt 10 days ago was that the recycle of the mjo was going to mute our chances of a big snow for several weeks in prime climo and blow up my forecast.  That’s just reality now.  

Looking ahead there are signs maybe we can salvage a good period.  The mjo is trending stronger towards 8 on the gefs and eps but not until after Feb 15 or so.  

We could get lucky with the boundary day 10-15.  There is enough cold in the pattern that some 50/50 help could do it.  But if we want a truly hecs big dog pattern we probably need some mjo cooperation to stop muting the blocking.  Many others have said the same thing.  After February 15 was when HM and Isotherm indicated it gets right in their recent posts so make its on pace and were just impatient after the epic period got pushed from Jan 15 to 20 to Feb 1 to Feb 15...  that’s a tough pill.  I strongly feel the mjo going right back to strong warm phases totally derailed the winter.  Everything was on pace up to that point.  Heck you got 11” from the hot second the mjo got into 8.  The good looks even made it into day 10 for a bit until guidance suddenly saw the mjo going wrong and it all evaporated fast.  

But what’s done is done.  The few times the mjo did get into cold phases this winter the results were good so if we can get that to cooperate, even late February into early March, we could get a big storm.  The fact the pattern has attempted to be ok even fighting a god awful mjo to me is a good sign.  It’s trying hard.  Even right now a system is tracking under us the next couple days but the huge eastern ridge renders that irrelevant.  I’m still hopeful we can get this right for a 10-14 day big storm window before it’s too late.  

 

[frd]

 

This is just sad for a  EL Nino winter. Betweeen this and the MJO 4 and 5 they left a mark that was hard to turn around.  

Even JB harping on the MJO and the IO convection.   

I like what I see towards the second half of Feb., but honestly not sure what happens before then is significant. 

Even though the MJO is progged to head to the COD and then 8 and 1 , I feel uncertain about that happening. I like to see the guideance a week from  

now still indicating phase 8 and 1, because we have been burned before.  My issue is that it takes a while to progress from where we are now MJO-wise  to better outcomes. 

 

 

[psuhoffman]

38 minutes ago, C.A.P.E. said:

As long as it doesn't try to reemerge in ph5 I am good with it hanging around the COD.

Maybe...except I’ve read stuff from multiple reliable sources that an mjo dying in warm phases isn’t very good rolling forward. How good/bad is debatable but getting into 8 is definitely preferred. 

But there are signs we will get there this time but not as quickly as we want. 

[Maestrobjwa]

24 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

According to Don S high amp 7 correlates to a -AO.  Low amp 7 doesn’t.  So there is good and bad on both but they both get to a good place at the end.  

My mini melt 10 days ago was that the recycle of the mjo was going to mute our chances of a big snow for several weeks in prime climo and blow up my forecast.  That’s just reality now.  

Looking ahead there are signs maybe we can salvage a good period.  The mjo is trending stronger towards 8 on the gefs and eps but not until after Feb 15 or so.  

We could get lucky with the boundary day 10-15.  There is enough cold in the pattern that some 50/50 help could do it.  But if we want a truly hecs big dog pattern we probably need some mjo cooperation to stop muting the blocking.  Many others have said the same thing.  After February 15 was when HM and Isotherm indicated it gets right in their recent posts so make its on pace and were just impatient after the epic period got pushed from Jan 15 to 20 to Feb 1 to Feb 15...  that’s a tough pill.  I strongly feel the mjo going right back to strong warm phases totally derailed the winter.  Everything was on pace up to that point.  Heck you got 11” from the hot second the mjo got into 8.  The good looks even made it into day 10 for a bit until guidance suddenly saw the mjo going wrong and it all evaporated fast.  

I still want to know why what the MJO did this year took even the best met minds by surprise. I just wanna know what can get better in forecasting going forward (is the MJO unexpectedly going ape in warmer phases something completely anomalous to this winter?). I asked this before but no one seems to know why!

(And "weather just weathers" ain't a satisfactory answer this time! If the MJO derailed forecasting this year, how do they make it so they can see it coming next time?)

[frd]

9 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

But there are signs we will get there this time but not as quickly as we want. 

If we get there I really feel we could go out with a bang.  Your right about he process as well, it takes it sweet time.

Did you see the SOI went negative.Amazing ! LOL

Daily contribution to SOI calculation

-3.84

 

 

[Ji]

this is going to be like January....exactly a month ago...the meltdowns were epic led by the most sane people(BobChill). there was nothing good on the horizon....and then we got a DC metro MECS...and then arctic cold blasts...more snow.....etc. We are going to punt the first week of Feb and then get back into the fun and games. 

[CAPE]

7 minutes ago, frd said:

 

This is just sad for a  EL Nino winter. Betweeen this and the MJO 4 and 5 they left a mark that was hard to turn around.  

Even JB harping on the MJO and the IO convection.   

I like what I see towards the second half of Feb., but honestly not sure what happens before then is significant. 

Even though the MJO is progged to head to the COD and then 8 and 1 , I feel uncertain about that happening. I like to see the guideance a week from  

now still indicating phase 8 and 1, because we have been burned before.  My issue is that it takes a while to progress from where we are now MJO-wise  to better outcomes. 

 

 

The reality is its not a Nino winter. The atmosphere is behaving more like a Nina. If we are going to have a persistent -PNA, it would be nice to see a pig of a west-based block develop. Not sure that's gonna happen though. I don't have a lot of faith in the guidance when it comes to advertised NA blocking in the LR. We see it over and over, and it rarely materializes in real time. The fact that we really don't have a Nino lessens the chances IMO. If the Pac cooperates a little more, then weaker blocking episodes as depicted on the EPS and some runs of the GEFS should work.

[psuhoffman]

58 minutes ago, showmethesnow said:

Yes, you were somewhat sparing last night with the negative postings I thought. But you have to look at it as a whole. The last couple of weeks you have been hammering the negatives with post after post so that now people just see this as a continuation of a pattern of behavior. It also doesn't help that you are continually getting into debates with these same people over their objections. All this does is to continually hammer home the fact that you do not like what the model/s showed. Best bet is probably to step back a touch, voice any concerns about a run with a post or two and then move on ignoring any criticisms that may follow.

Makes total sense especially the bold.  And your point about 10 days ago is true. But I do wish some would not read too much into comments I make specific to one thing.

What I feared has happened. We are losing a chunk of Feb and we did get some snow but a good big storm pattern never developed.  But I’m past that now. I’m hopeful it’s only a week we lose. Maybe the first half if the trough axis sets up too far west. We don’t know yet.  I’m actually not down on February as a whole. Just because I was upset when the reality the Jan 20-feb 10 period was not going as I thought or hoped doesn’t mean I’m down in the rest of winter. And being down on one gefs run doesn’t mean I’m down on the pattern. Some comments are specific to one thing only and not meant to be expanded to a broader context. 

[poolz1]

The PNA has been + for the entire winter....minus a few neutral periods.  A quick glance at that graph it looks like most of our snow has come during/near PNA neutral periods.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Here is where the next tracking period starts. The thurs-fri system likely cuts west BUT it is the catalyst that sets up the boundary or gradient pattern setup. This is the first wave behind the thurs-fri catalyst. Like mentioned earlier we are punted thru around the 9th give or take. Dont get caught up too much in the flips and flops up thru then. What we are going to want to track is post thurs-fri and how far South the boundary gets. Active times ahead....enjoy the 'relax' for most of this week.

[psuhoffman]

16 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

I still want to know why what the MJO did this year took even the best met minds by surprise. I just wanna know what can get better in forecasting going forward (is the MJO unexpectedly going ape in warmer phases something completely anomalous to this winter?). I asked this before but no one seems to know why!

(And "weather just weathers" ain't a satisfactory answer this time! If the MJO derailed forecasting this year, how do they make it so they can see it coming next time?)

We just can’t see all the variables that go into influencing the atmospheric patterns. We are a long long way from that. We do the best we can but some things are hard to see and other times conflicting signals make it hard to predict outcomes and sometimes chaos just kicks our buts. 

[Ji]

Gfs is perfect

[BristowWx]

5 minutes ago, Ralph Wiggum said:

Here is where the next tracking period starts. The thurs-fri system likely cuts west BUT it is the catalyst that sets up the boundary or gradient pattern setup. This is the first wave behind the thurs-fri catalyst. Like mentioned earlier we are punted thru around the 9th give or take. Dont get caught up too much in the flips and flops up thru then. What we are going to want to track is post thurs-fri and how far South the boundary gets. Active times ahead....enjoy the 'relax' for most of this week.

Well the 12z GFS at this range looks headed in right direction.  1057 H pushing down and incoming precip.  Targets just south but marked improvement from previous. The old squeeze play so if that’s the case tracking starts soon