December/January 2019/20 Winter Speculation Thread

[weathertree4u]

1 minute ago, Carvers Gap said:

Just watched JB this AM...he makes a lot of good points.  The warm water of NW Australia is causing the convection in the 4-6 regions to really be enhanced.  So, every time a wave hits that region the convections goes nuts.  So, basically we go 4, 5, and 6 which is warmth followed by a cold down as the convection leaves those areas.  He did point out(and the individual MJO model members are not out yet on CPC) that the ECMWF has been correcting into 8 prior to crossing the COD into warm phases.  If(and I don't think it is a certainty) the MJO regions fires, it will be a prolonged period of warmth.  As I said earlier(not from JB), going to need the Atlantic to help.  I just don't think the Pacific is going to do it.

 

I don't see the Atlantic helping that much or enough in time have a meaningful impact. Does anyone have data to suggest otherwise? 

[Carvers Gap]

4 minutes ago, weathertree4u said:

I don't see the Atlantic helping that much or enough in time have a meaningful impact. Does anyone have data to suggest otherwise? 

Working on that post.  No,  Atlantic blocking help is not being consistently shown.  With the positive AMO, the Atlantic will not be dependable until it flips.  Probably several years before that pattern shifts.  The +AMO has an excellent correlation to the current stretch of poor winters that we are having.  I recommend reading PSU's discussion in the MA forum from yesterday.  The analog years that match this pattern when rolled forward required an NAO for winter to continue.  Those missing the NAO saw a hostile Pacific help.  PSU has hard data to answer your question.

[weathertree4u]

Just now, Carvers Gap said:

Working on that post.  No,  Atlantic blocking help is not being consistently shown.  With the positive AMO, the Atlantic will not be dependable until it flips.  Probably several years before that pattern shifts.  The +AMO has an excellent correlation to the current stretch of poor winters that we are having.  I recommend reading PSU's discussion in the MA forum from yesterday.  The analog years that match this pattern when rolled forward required an NAO for winter to continue.  Those missing the NAO saw a hostile Pacific help.  PSU has hard data to answer your question.

So, once the AMO flips, is it conventional wisdom that the East in general can expect actual winter to make an appearance for several consecutive season's? 

[Carvers Gap]

It is not uncommon to have stretches of bad winters IMBY.  We had some lousy one in the 90s and even during the 80s.  The QBO reversal is the one thing that could help us.  Is it powerful enough to override the MJO, not sure about that.  However, it should enhance blocking signals.  Blocking during Nino winters is often seen during the second half of winter or even later winter.  The NAO will often flip negative for a time during late January and February during El Nino winters.  I have my doubts about that.  The NAO was due for a flip after a very long stretch this year of being negative.  I highly doubt it is done with its positive cycle yet.  What we need is a stretch of 2-4 weeks of it being negative...even if the overall trend is positive.  That can happen.  It is also important to note that the NAO is infamous for how difficult it is to predict after d10.  The -NAO probably saved us from truly record warmth during some of December when the Pacific was less than favorable.  

The problem with many of these analogs, is that some folks are using analogs from time frames were the AMO was negative.  Those analogs don't work right now.  But folks form analogs from the 70s and early to mid 80s into analog packages, and it makes the analog package too cold.  Do I think we return to colder winters once the AMO flips?  I strongly think that winters will be much colder relative to the 1990-2025.   Do I think it will return to the the winters of the 1970s?  Probably not, but better than now.  When the AMO is negative it mirrors nearly perfectly our worst winter time frames.  

Do I think this winter is similar to last year?  No.  However, at this latitude one can get the same outcome by taking several different routes. It wants to rain in the subtropics.  Same is true for snow in the northern latitudes.  It wants to snow there, and there are many paths to take to a snowy pattern in places like Alaska.

2 seasons ago:  La Nina and that is notable a warm signal here.

Last winter:   Atmosphere never coupled with the Nino pattern as evidenced by the SOI.  The warm Pacific amped the jet, buckled it, and the SSW caused the polar vortex to be displaced into the trough forming out West.  Also, had an active MJO.

This winter:  Decembers are supposed to be warm during El Ninos.  Check.  We have a cold shot coming in early January, then the warm-up.  The reason I do not like El Nino winters is their habit for showing up late or sometimes not at all.  Like pulling teeth.  January is often a transitional month to cold during El Ninos.  The reason many of us are concerned is that transition is not being modeled, and in fact, the opposite is being shown.  Also, not that there is cold water off South America at the equator.  That correlates strongly to a SER.  One could make a pretty convincing argument that we are actually in a La Nada and those are generally not good winters IMBY.  Also, the MJO region and IO are firing which is overwhelming a weak Nino signal.   If there are two similarities to last winter, it would be the active MJO and an early season SSW(one split and another tightens up the vortex).    However, we are achieving a warm pattern via 2-3 different means mainly due to our latitude.  Our climatology at this elevation does not support winter upon winter of excellent snow.   One could make a pretty convincing argument that we are actually in a La Nada and those are generally not good winters IMBY.  

Once the full suite of MJOs are in, I will try to swing back by...

[Carvers Gap]

20 minutes ago, weathertree4u said:

So, once the AMO flips, is it conventional wisdom that the East in general can expect actual winter to make an appearance for several consecutive season's? 

Winters IMBY rarely have multiple great winters in a row...meaning lots of cold and snow.  A great winter time frame would be like three out of five winters being good.  But yes, a -AMO would correlate to better winters for decades at a time.  I think we flipped positive around the late 80s.  I noticed during the late 80s a significant trend towards warmer winters. Now, I grew up in the 70s and will forever be spoiled.   That is my baseline so everything is warmer.  I likely won't see anything like that again in my lifetime.  It is tough to know when that index actually flips.  Looks like 40-50 year increments are the norm.  If the warm cycle began during the late 80s, then it would be over  during the late 2020s.  There are definite signs that the index is trending down with each season - meaning we have hit the apex of the cycle and are trending down.  If one subscribes to Jeff's discussion about index trajectory(and I do), it could help us prior to that.  If you google the decades that many remember as truly cold, those decades are often -AMO winters.  I think the +AMO coupled with a warmer than norma Pacific is creating ample options for warm winters.  It may very well be that the -AMO will counterbalance the Pacific and at least get us to what we remember as "normal" winters.  All of that said, the northern Rockies(not this year), have been cold and snow for several winters of the 2010s...so there are places within the continental US doing quite well.  

[Carvers Gap]

The thing that looks wonky is seeing that high pressure sit in the same spot and barely move.  It could be right and it also could be feedback.  As evidence,  the upcoming cold snap was completely missed on the EPS at first, then it had it, then it lost it, and now it is back.  Not uncommon for LR modeling to miss something.  The assumption that we have to be careful of is this...that all LR modeling is the gospel.  It is not.  A base warm pattern can and does have extreme shots of cold.  The problem with LR modeling being in lock-step is that it causes group think.  I don't think that happens on this forum, but it does occur.  It is always best to analyze how modeling could be wrong if it verifies as not.  So, the one thing that makes me continually suspicious of the LR is that features are almost standing in place, especially the big ridge near the Aleutians.  However, features can hold in one place for long periods of time so it is not unprecedented as evidenced by the trough that tucked in over MT last winter and spring.  But that is a really big feature to lock in.  I do think it is a signal for an extended period of warmth, but don't think the stationary look is realistic.  If that ridge kicks eastward just a hair (relative to global scale), the pattern is completely different.  

[weathertree4u]

9 minutes ago, Carvers Gap said:

Winters IMBY rarely have multiple great winters in a row...meaning lots of cold and snow.  A great winter time frame would be like three out of five winters being good.  But yes, a -AMO would correlate to better winters for decades at a time.  I think we flipped positive around the late 80s.  I noticed during the late 80s a significant trend towards warmer winters. Now, I grew up in the 70s and will forever be spoiled.   That is my baseline so everything is warmer.  I likely won't see anything like that again in my lifetime.  It is tough to know when that index actually flips.  Looks like 40-50 year increments are the norm.  If the warm cycle began during the late 80s, then it would be over  during the late 2020s.  There are definite signs that the index is trending down with each season - meaning we have hit the apex of the cycle and are trending down.  If one subscribes to Jeff's discussion about index trajectory(and I do), it could help us prior to that.  If you google the decades that many remember as truly cold, those decades are often -AMO winters.  I think the +AMO coupled with a warmer than norma Pacific is creating ample options for warm winters.  It may very well be that the -AMO will counterbalance the Pacific and at least get us to what we remember as "normal" winters.  All of that said, the northern Rockies(not this year), have been cold and snow for several winters of the 2010s...so there are places within the continental US doing quite well.  

So what you are saying is that your crystal ball is in the shop?

[Carvers Gap]

8 minutes ago, weathertree4u said:

So what you are saying is that your crystal ball is in the shop?

Not at all regarding the AMO.  Just saying we have 5-10 years before the AMO flips.   We have completed about thirty years of a forty year pattern.  What month and year that cycle actually flips is not something any model or any person can know for sure.  Climate cycles are extraordinarily fickle.  Essentially, we are trying to predict something out of chaos.  Our weather models are quite good out to about 8 days now regarding specific features.  They are also quite good at picking out pattern trends to about 3-4 weeks.  The best we can do regarding the AMO is to look at past data and use it to forecast when the flip occurs.  So the best crystal ball that we have is the climate record.  The crystal ball that would predict when the AMO would flip with complete specificity is not in the shop, because we have never had it to begin with.  Back to chaos, the one thing that can help is in fact "chaos."  A pattern that looks locked into place is likely going to change.  On a micro-scale, none of us want to be in the snow bullseye ten days out.  Why?  We know that is going to change.  At a macro-scale, it is probably easier to say a warming trend is coming, but we can't predict the specifics because we don't have the technology to do that yet past 8 days.   So, we can say a big-warm up is coming but still miss cold front embedded in a warm pattern.

[Carvers Gap]

9 minutes ago, weathertree4u said:

So what you are saying is that your crystal ball is in the shop?

What I am also saying is that it is very likely going to warm-up after January 12th for an extended amount of time.  What I am trying to do is to question weather the duration being portrayed is correct.  I have my doubts.  My seasonal forecast ideas are in the summer thread around late June.  I think they are actually fairly decent ideas and have covered a lot of what we are seeing now and also covered what could go help/hurt our winter chances.  I did include the AMO in that post.  That said, once the winter season begins I don't try to bend my micro forecast ideas around my macro seasonal ideas.  That is a good way to be perpetually wrong.  I usually leave the two as separate entities.  I see too many good pro and hobby forecasters who won't embrace large scale atmospheric changes that occur (seemingly out of the blue) because they don't want their seasonal ideas to be wrong.  Calling for a warm-up in January does counter my June ideas, but that is a good example of why it is important to keep seasonal ideas separate from micro stuff.  Seasonal forecasting(and actually being right) is still in its early stages, because chaos wrecks havoc on even the best of forecasts.   I can probably count on one hand the number of folks who have enough skill to hit seasonal forecasts in the "sometimes" category and they are the absolute best.  The rest of us just have fun trying.  As Mr. Bob has said before, each year is its own analog.  I think that is important to remember as well.  Weather forecasting is an inexact science as we control very few of the variables.  But that is also what makes it fun...surprises still can and do occur even during this age of information.

[Hilton01]

24 minutes ago, Carvers Gap said:

Not at all regarding the AMO.  Just saying we have 5-10 years before the AMO flips.   We have completed about thirty years of a forty year pattern.  What month and year that cycle actually flips is not something any model or any person can know for sure.  Climate cycles are extraordinarily fickle.  Essentially, we are trying to predict something out of chaos.  Our weather models are quite good out to about 8 days now regarding specific features.  They are also quite good at picking out pattern trends to about 3-4 weeks.  The best we can do regarding the AMO is to look at past data and use it to forecast when the flip occurs.  So the best crystal ball that we have is the climate record.  The crystal ball that would predict when the AMO would flip with complete specificity is not in the shop, because we have never had it to begin with.  Back to chaos, the one thing that can help is in fact "chaos."  A pattern that looks locked into place is likely going to change.  On a micro-scale, none of us want to be in the snow bullseye ten days out.  Why?  We know that is going to change.  At a macro-scale, it is probably easier to say a warming trend is coming, but we can't predict the specifics because we don't have the technology to do that yet past 8 days.   So, we can say a big-warm up is coming but still miss cold front embedded in a warm pattern.

I’ve said this before and got considerable flak back but I still this we are a long way off from even much more then playing Plinko and/or educated guessing beyond ~10 days models output. I do feel that at some point a major breakthrough will occur that allows us to be “better” understand and begin to better predict/asses. I know I will get some backlash but this is directed at no one, just atmospheric understanding. I appreciate all of you here, read every word written and am greatful for all your willingness to share.

all science starts at infancy, (with people) even in today’s tech world

I still remember my meteorology classes I tool at UT (there were only 2 at the time but I made sure to take them) the one thing that the prof kept saying all year  (he was U of Wis. trained) that really stood out was that the field of meteorology was in bad need of intellectual as well as technological breakthroughs. Not just better ways of doing what we’re doing( i.e model upgrades), but of rethinking and reevaluating what we are doing. So anyway I’ve opened my self up to another round of abuse, but please understand this is directed at no one at all, just human umdestanding or struggle to understand. Thanypu all here and I am serious when I say I read every word every one of you contributes. Hopefully no hard feelings.

[Carvers Gap]

Just now, Hilton01 said:

I’ve said this before and got considerable flak back but I still this we are a long way off from even much more then playing Plinko and/or educated guessing beyond ~10 days models output. I do feel that at some point a major breakthrough will occur that allows us to be “better” understand and begin to better predict/asses. I know I will get some backlash but this is directed at no one, just atmospheric understanding. I appreciate all of you here, read every word written and am greatful for all your willingness to share.

I think we are good out to about 8 days in terms of actually specific features, and even then it is tough at eight days.  Actual weather patterns can be identified out to about 3-4 weeks, and four weeks is pushing it.  Seasonal forecasting will be the Holy Grail of my lifetime.  I have been pretty warm in my discussions since early December.  I get excited like the rest when modeling throws us a nice run...but generally there have been few indices or modeling that has shown anything but a very warm pattern.  I think most of us are here to find winter wx patterns, so we dig around even in this warm pattern and look for cold signals.  That said, I am not sure I want to be around once we have strong AI, and it can predict seasonal forecasting to near exact metrics.  If we have a computer that can do that, then we likely have other technology that we don't want around that is much smarter than humans.  LOL.  You know one thing I have considered and it may be banter worthy...there are places where cloud seeding takes place.  I know for a fact that it takes place in the Mountain West.   I have seen the machines that do it.  I do wonder as that becomes more prominent, how that will change our weather patterns and if that is occurring now.   Emptying the air of its moisture surely has downstream impacts.  

[Hilton01]

10 minutes ago, Carvers Gap said:

I think we are good out to about 8 days in terms of actually specific features, and even then it is tough at eight days.  Actual weather patterns can be identified out to about 3-4 weeks, and four weeks is pushing it.  Seasonal forecasting will be the Holy Grail of my lifetime.  I have been pretty warm in my discussions since early December.  I get excited like the rest when modeling throws us a nice run...but generally there have been few indices or modeling that has shown anything but a very warm pattern.  I think most of us are here to find winter wx patterns, so we dig around even in this warm pattern and look for cold signals.  That said, I am not sure I want to be around once we have strong AI, and it can predict seasonal forecasting to near exact metrics.  If we have a computer that can do that, then we likely have other technology that we don't want around that is much smarter than humans.  LOL.  You know one thing I have considered and it may be banter worthy...there are places where cloud seeding takes place.  I know for a fact that it takes place in the Mountain West.   I have seen the machines that do it.  I do wonder as that becomes more prominent, how that will change our weather patterns and if that is occurring now.   Emptying the air of its moisture surely has downstream impacts.  

Just seems like year after year there are no long term lasting model improvements. That is, of course, unless we are getting better by learning to read and interpret faulty models/science (art/instinct) which I do realize is a huge part of successful meteorology however not do much a valid part of science. Again, no knocking intended, hope to be here when the person or team makes a break through. Or when we realize this is as good as we can do with such a random volotile dynamic variable unlimited system! Oh good old planet earff!

[Hilton01]

28 minutes ago, Carvers Gap said:

I think we are good out to about 8 days in terms of actually specific features, and even then it is tough at eight days.  Actual weather patterns can be identified out to about 3-4 weeks, and four weeks is pushing it.  Seasonal forecasting will be the Holy Grail of my lifetime.  I have been pretty warm in my discussions since early December.  I get excited like the rest when modeling throws us a nice run...but generally there have been few indices or modeling that has shown anything but a very warm pattern.  I think most of us are here to find winter wx patterns, so we dig around even in this warm pattern and look for cold signals.  That said, I am not sure I want to be around once we have strong AI, and it can predict seasonal forecasting to near exact metrics.  If we have a computer that can do that, then we likely have other technology that we don't want around that is much smarter than humans.  LOL.  You know one thing I have considered and it may be banter worthy...there are places where cloud seeding takes place.  I know for a fact that it takes place in the Mountain West.   I have seen the machines that do it.  I do wonder as that becomes more prominent, how that will change our weather patterns and if that is occurring now.   Emptying the air of its moisture surely has downstream impacts.  

Just seems like year after year there are no long term lasting model improvements. That is, of course, unless we are getting better by learning to read and interpret faulty models/science (art/instinct) which I do realize is a huge part of successful meteorology however not do much a valid part of science. Again, no knocking intended, hope to be here when the person or team makes a break through. Or when we realize this is as good as we can do with such a random volotile dynamic variable unlimited system! Oh good old planet earff!

[Carvers Gap]

17 minutes ago, Hilton01 said:

Just seems like year after year there are no long term lasting model improvements. That is, of course, unless we are getting better by learning to read and interpret faulty models/science (art/instinct) which I do realize is a huge part of successful meteorology however not do much a valid part of science. Again, no knocking intended, hope to be here when the person or team makes a break through. Or when we realize this is as good as we can do with such a random volotile dynamic variable unlimited system! Oh good old planet earff!

If you think about where we were 25 years ago, it is pretty impressive.  I think the problem is that a model has built in biases.  In other words, during the years that programming was written...it is only going to be as good as what we know then OR what is driving the weather then.  If a new driver comes onto the scene, it might make a a particular version of modeling obsolete until the programing is corrected.  I know there are things that are being discussed now that were rarely discussed when I first started doing this as a hobby.   It is pretty crazy to think that heights over Indonesia impact weather here.  So, I think some of this is just understanding the weather well enough to write programming for it.  Those wx models are only as good as the physics and data being placed into them.  And as far as I know, they don't adapt.  Strong AI would adapt and "think."    What can be simulated on modeling right now is mind boggling.  Each little eddy and height fall can now be modeled across the globe.  But what we aren't able to solve is how the Butterfly Effect changes things.   Our understanding of the stratosphere(SSWs), wind current reversals(QBO), and the MJO will only serve to make modeling better.  The tricky thing is what happens, for example,  if a model is a bit to heavily dependent on the MJO and it ceases to be the driver?  And that is partly what makes me suspicious of the MJO...if it is incorrectly modeling the MJO, it might we way off.  OTH, it has been whipping the GFS/GEFS for about four weeks.  

[Hilton01]

Or here’s a thought and please anyone feel free to correct me if I am off the mark. I have only been reading here and weather in general for about 10 -15 years. I have only become to have a basic understanding of modeling and how they work and how they are interpreted (seems most off they are interpreted to not do what the model  says but a met can still use his or her skill to interpret the way they choose, but anyway).

But, at the same time, for years on and off, I have heard talk of how much better the models used to be, at least from 10 days in, maybe more then 10? I don’t recall hearing for certain. But without a doubt, I’ve heard for years that the models  were much more reliable from 10 days in.  So that brings me to the point.  Is there another variable, maybe unknown but at least misunderstood, to our earff/atmosphere, that were don’t know if or understand yet?  And if so, what was going on when the models (not sure exactly when, 1980-1990s??, I still here people talk about watching storms that varified for days before hand, 93 as ex. I believe? were acting as a better, more reliable tool to mets (and to all others on here as well)? Again, I know, I know! The flogging may now commence!

Please understand, it is never my intention to upset or make light of anyone or anything weather related ( or anything human related  for that matter) this is directed at no one, only questions I have and thoughts I think about. Thank you all and I would welcome thoughts and feedback, but preferably not the flogging.

[Hilton01]

11 minutes ago, Carvers Gap said:

If you think about where we were 25 years ago, it is pretty impressive.  I think the problem is that a model has built in biases.  In other words, during the years that programming was written...it is only going to be as good as what we know then OR what is driving the weather then.  If a new driver comes onto the scene, it might make a a particular version of modeling obsolete until the programing is corrected.  I know there are things that are being discussed now that were rarely discussed when I first started doing this as a hobby.   It is pretty crazy to think that heights over Indonesia impact weather here.  So, I think some of this is just understanding the weather well enough to write programming for it.  Those wx models are only as good as the physics and data being placed into them.  And as far as I know, they don't adapt.  Strong AI would adapt and "think."    What can be simulated on modeling right now is mind boggling.  Each little eddy and height fall can now be modeled across the globe.  But what we aren't able to solve is how the Butterfly Effect changes things.   Our understanding of the stratosphere(SSWs), wind current reversals(QBO), and the MJO will only serve to make modeling better.  The tricky thing is what happens, for example,  if a model is a bit to heavily dependent on the MJO and it ceases to be the driver?  And that is partly what makes me suspicious of the MJO...if it is incorrectly modeling the MJO, it might we way off.  OTH, it has been whipping the GFS/GEFS for about four weeks.  

I get it I get. I guess I see Met/atmospheres  as one of the last unknowns to man.  Always wondered if a scale type model might help in some way, maybe very limited, but maybe not. I don’t know,  just not sure computers are ever going to model a earff that big, atmosphere that big, both  rotating, both the affected by moon and sun and countless millions of variables happening every second millions of time and there both rotating a different speeds and directions at places, and it’s tilted and that butterf... never mind I’m gonna stop there my thumb hurts. We might get better by using what we have and making it better but it only ever going to better at what purpose it serves now. I’ve long though of a physical model. Would not be easy or perfect but who knows where met might going?

[Carvers Gap]

31 minutes ago, Hilton01 said:

I get it I get. I guess I see Met/atmospheres  as one of the last unknowns to man.  Always wondered if a scale type model might help in some way, maybe very limited, but maybe not. I don’t know,  just not sure computers are ever going to model a earff that big, atmosphere that big, both  rotating, both the affected by moon and sun and countless millions of variables happening every second millions of time and there both rotating a different speeds and directions at places, and it’s tilted and that butterf... never mind I’m gonna stop there my thumb hurts. We might get better by using what we have and making it better but it only ever going to better at what purpose it serves now. I’ve long though of a physical model. Would not be easy or perfect but who knows where met might going?

A really good example of something that was not modeled was the extreme solar min that we are experiencing.  A scale type model?  That is a pretty interesting idea.  But I will say the EPS has been very accurate when it comes to December - not so much for November (maybe because it always warm?).  Anyway, good discussion.  Just got in from running...in shorts and a t-shirt during late December!  LOL.  

[Carvers Gap]

54 minutes ago, Hilton01 said:

Or here’s a thought and please anyone feel free to correct me if I am off the mark. I have only been reading here and weather in general for about 10 -15 years. I have only become to have a basic understanding of modeling and how they work and how they are interpreted (seems most off they are interpreted to not do what the model  says but a met can still use his or her skill to interpret the way they choose, but anyway).

But, at the same time, for years on and off, I have heard talk of how much better the models used to be, at least from 10 days in, maybe more then 10? I don’t recall hearing for certain. But without a doubt, I’ve heard for years that the models  were much more reliable from 10 days in.  So that brings me to the point.  Is there another variable, maybe unknown but at least misunderstood, to our earff/atmosphere, that were don’t know if or understand yet?  And if so, what was going on when the models (not sure exactly when, 1980-1990s??, I still here people talk about watching storms that varified for days before hand, 93 as ex. I believe? were acting as a better, more reliable tool to mets (and to all others on here as well)? Again, I know, I know! The flogging may now commence!

Please understand, it is never my intention to upset or make light of anyone or anything weather related ( or anything human related  for that matter) this is directed at no one, only questions I have and thoughts I think about. Thank you all and I would welcome thoughts and feedback, but preferably not the flogging.

I think the abnormally warm Pacific is throwing things way off.  I am not sure how much analogs/climatology is factored into each model.  However, if analog packages are outdated, would make sense that modeling might be struggling.  The one model that I feel has regressed is the Euro Weeklies.  They rarely model anything cold outside of about three weeks.  I think when a pattern is stable, modeling can be accurate.  November, being a shoulder month, made the EPS looks silly.  Now, that we are in a ridge/West and trough/East pattern...it is very accurate.  However, big caveat, it has trouble seeing pattern flips.  

Meteorology prior to computer modeling was very inaccurate, even under three days.  It is pretty rare to get a big snowstorm that shows up under three days on a forecast now. I think one thing that computer modeling is doing right now is saving lives during severe events and during tropical events.  Those used to take a lot of lives.  We are now able to get people shelter or just out of the way.  So computer modeling has had very tangible and helpful results.  Like anything else, it has its limitations.  To me the best thing I have ever seen a computer model do was the 2018 polar vortex split that the GFS modeled from 15 days out.  

[Carvers Gap]

Looking at the 12z GEFS/GFS model suite.  Warm, very warm.  Minus a few runs, that has been the message on modeling since late November.  This winter reminds me of those winters in the 90s where it got warm and never looked back - or it just was a non-winter.  Thankfully, it is not the 90s...but it still looks warm.  There are some positives.  The GFS is a bit more variable, but it has gotten thoroughly trounced during December by the Euro.  The nearly stationary features on the ensembles it counter-inuitive.  I have a difficult time believing that lasts for more than 4-5 days without things shaking loose.   Again, the one thing we need is a -NAO which there is no sign of that.  These massively warm temps are IMHO merely a continuation of the September and October pattern that featured very warm temps.  November was cold because the changing wavelengths would not allow the early fall pattern to continue.  Indeed many, including me, saw November as a pattern change...indeed, it was IMHO only a relaxation of a mega-ridge in the East.  And worst case, as we get into February the same thing should happen again - meaning a pattern shake-up(not saying extreme cold).  Don't really have any choice but to be patient and hope maybe we can steal an event during the second week of January.  I do hold out some hope that the cold snap next week might shake the pattern up to the point that modeling is missing things.  I have definitely been in cold patterns where a brief warm-up was modeled only to see that warm-up(once it arrives) lock-in and not leave.  I hold out minimal hope that happens this time - only the warm being replaced by cold instead.  That said, the analog of 1954 lives on as we broke a record from 1954 yesterday.  1954 was warm in both January and February as well against its norms(not the new norms).

[Carvers Gap]

I am just really suspicious d10-15 seeing a feature that is holding in place like that high does in the Pacific.  Pretty rare to see a feature not get jostled around some.  I could be wrong, but that just doesn't look realistic.  It may very well be correct or at least the base pattern might be a hp in that spot.  But about the only think I have eve seen just sit and spin there is a GOA vortex - not a high.  But man, it is locked in like a heat seeking missile on the ensembles.  

[Carvers Gap]

After beating the warm drum for most of the month, the pinnacle of that warmth(so far) was a whopping and almost mind boggling +26F AN yesterday.  If one looks at modeling, really no end in sight.  Model are locked-in to a rather anomalous pattern after January 10th which could potentially see a number of record highs threatened or broken which includes the all-time record high of 79 for January at TRI. The pattern being depicted is probably close to the warmest ridge I have seen modeled regarding event duration and intensity during recent winters.  One or two day quick hitters are not uncommon.  However, the pattern between Jan10-20 is one that will feature early summer time temps if they verify.  I think at the very least a period of 7-10 days of incredible warmth is probable between January 11-21.  If the weeklies are correct, we may get a brief correction to AN(instead of much AN) near the end of January.  And if the Weeklies are correct, a sustained winter pattern looks improbable at any point.  Do I think it is correct?  I am 50/50 on that prospect.  I see nothing on modeling or on any indices that says anything but incredible warmth for the first 2/3 of January at least, excluding the January 4-11 period(edit) during the second week of January.  

AO:  warm

NAO: warm

PNA: warm

PDO: warm

MJO: very warm

AMO: warm

SOI: warm

It is now likely that DJF will finish AN(if not in record territory) as the first half of winter will be virtually impossible to erase such AN temps.  Until the fourth week of January, I think chances are exceedingly slim.  I hope we look back on this post next year and remark how huge of a pattern flip we had...but I am not holding my breath.  At this point, I am assuming the base pattern is AN to much AN.  And at this point, I am just going to be hunting brief cold downs and potential snow events attached to those.  So, if you think I am promoting a cold pattern...I am not.  I am just tired of talking about warmth.  Other than November, this pattern has been a torch since early September.  Just going to try to find some cold in otherwise very warm pattern...first chance is next week.  So lack of upcoming discussion(about warmth) by me doesn't mean it isn't going to be warm.  Increased discussion about a particular even shouldn't be interpreted as cold coming on a grand scale.  And I will end with this...I just have a hard time believing a pattern move quite progressively(from now until January 10th) and then seeing the atmospheric pattern "freeze" ad nauseam in the northern hemisphere.  Looks like a feedback problem, but at this point I have very few ideas which counter the upcoming warmth.  The only nugget is HM is talking about a positive AAM.  That could dislodge that Pacific ridge.  Other than that...not too many signs pointing to sustained winter weather prior to January 20th.  Not going to say we have a fab February either as the CFS hints at.  But in reality, February and late January might be our only hope for winter events.

 

[Carvers Gap]

And FTR, there are two record lows from 1955 in February and one for March.  Oh, why not!

[Carvers Gap]

And so to start(just completely ignoring the torch after), looks like the 18z GFS shows a chance for winter weather on Jan 9th and/or 11th.  Looks to me like that window is decent relative to what precedes or follows it.  

[Carvers Gap]

Check that.  January 4-11 looks like the window..

[Wurbus]

We'll see if it comes to fruition, but almost every GEFS member shows some snow this weekend. GFS also shows some light snow/flurries during this time period.

[Carvers Gap]

Well, that is a different run from the 0z GFS...we can live with that out to 312.  A cooler (than the previous day) overnight run?  Wat?

[Carvers Gap]

0z GEFS holds solid compared to previous runs.  No surprise...

[jaxjagman]

Not many great signs for the coldest month of the year

[PowellVolz]

It’s funny reading that we are possibly/probably going into a warm period around d10 when we just broke record high temps a couple of days ago.


.

[Carvers Gap]

1 hour ago, PowellVolz said:

It’s funny reading that we are possibly/probably going into a warm period around d10 when we just broke record high temps a couple of days ago.


.

I know right.  A warming trend in relation to temps that are already record highs!  If there is ever a time for the Euro/EPS to be wrong...about right now would be good timing!