January 2020 Mid/Long Term Discussion

[RevWarReenactor]

33 minutes ago, BristowWx said:

let’s just all log off the site for 5 straight days and make a binding pact not to look at anything weather.  Every thread no members browsing. Then all log back in Saturday and see where we are at.  Who’s with me?

This tactic doesn't work. Done the whole log off for 2 weeks and came back to find 2 more weeks of winter was gone and it was still doom and gloom. Its happened 3-4 times.

[cbmclean]

23 minutes ago, Mersky said:

With average temps reaching their lowest point around the 3rd week of January I wouldn’t say the days 14-21 are a torch for the area. 

I think this map is just comparing the Ensemble Mean temp forecast between the 12Z and the 0Z.  It doesn't actually show the forecast anomalies.

[BristowWx]

2 minutes ago, cbmclean said:

I think this map is just comparing the Ensemble Mean temp forecast between the 12Z and the 0Z.  It doesn't actually show the forecast anomalies.

So it’s .5C warmer aprox. than 0z? 

[CAPE]

25 minutes ago, Mersky said:

With average temps reaching their lowest point around the 3rd week of January I wouldn’t say the days 14-21 are a torch for the area. 

Yeah high temps in the mid 40s would be glorious for outdoor activities around the 20th of Jan, but the advertised 500 mb pattern is not supportive of snow for this area, which is all anyone here cares about.

[CAPE]

Just now, BristowWx said:

So it’s .5C warmer aprox. than 0z? 

Here are the actual 7 day temp anomalies for mid Jan as advertised on the latest weeklies.

[BristowWx]

That being a smoothed average of all the members it could be quite a bit warmer in reality.  I am guessing anyway. 

[Ralph Wiggum]

I didnt have a chance to go back thru the thread....so I apologize if discussed already. I did see the euro weeklies but nobody mentioned the CFS new weeklies that I saw. Jan 20-27 BN temps and AN precip. Then much BN temps but dry into mid Feb. Better than doom gloom torch puke talk anyway.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Not horrible:

 

[CAPE]

Just now, Ralph Wiggum said:

I didnt have a chance to go back thru the thread....so I apologize if discussed already. I did see the euro weeklies but nobody mentioned the CFS new weeklies that I saw. Jan 20-27 BN temps and AN precip. Then much BN temps but dry into mid Feb. Better than doom gloom torch puke talk anyway.

Yeah I mentioned it earlier today. PSU was very excited to hear that the CFS is advertising a shift from Pac puke to a cutter pattern with cold/dry shots.

[CAPE]

3 minutes ago, Ralph Wiggum said:

Not horrible:

 

 

I thought it looked decent and much better than what we are staring at now. If nothing else that would bring cross polar flow with some clipper potential. Too bad it's the CFS at range and is about as useful as the EPS weeklies.

[WinterWxLuvr]

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

I thought it looked decent and much better than what we are staring at now. If nothing else that would bring cross polar flow with some clipper potential. Too bad it's the CFS at range and is about as useful as the EPS weeklies.

Clippers are a myth, right along side anafrontal snow.

[psuhoffman]

1 hour ago, C.A.P.E. said:

I thought it looked decent and much better than what we are staring at now. If nothing else that would bring cross polar flow with some clipper potential. Too bad it's the CFS at range and is about as useful as the EPS weeklies.

That look actually isn't too far from a workable one.  As is that would be mostly a cold dry look after the wet look the first week which I suspect is from a cutter to usher in the pattern.  BUT...get the trough to hang back into the SW a bit more to create a positively tilted trough with just enough SE ridge and it becomes a good pattern for progressive waves.  I would take my chances with that look.  Its a stones throw from a workable look unlike what the Euro weeklies suggests with is pretty much a no hope shut out the lights for the entire season look.  However...I am about to drop what is going to be the least popular post in americanwx history.  

[ravensrule]

17 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

That look actually isn't too far from a workable one.  As is that would be mostly a cold dry look after the wet look the first week which I suspect is from a cutter to usher in the pattern.  BUT...get the trough to hang back into the SW a bit more to create a positively tilted trough with just enough SE ridge and it becomes a good pattern for progressive waves.  I would take my chances with that look.  Its a stones throw from a workable look unlike what the Euro weeklies suggests with is pretty much a no hope shut out the lights for the entire season look.  However...I am about to drop what is going to be the least popular post in americanwx history.  

You could never top one of Ji's posts. 

[psuhoffman]

8 hours ago, cbmclean said:

I think you may have posted this before, but how many years were in your analog pool for Pacific Doom Blob?  Apparently there at least a few where the blob died earlier than others?  I know I'm reaching for straws here, but not much else to do.

Now that I am home with the data in front of me...I will answer this...but its gonna hurt.

First let me start with some hope...there were some similar patterns early in winter that flipped.  The best 3 examples of that are 1965/66, 1999/2000 and 2004/5.  This is the 1966 example.

It went from this

to this

and a pretty epic period in late January and then another big storm in February.  

However...all 3 of those examples the pacific ridge pattern set in early in December and was already breaking down in the first half of January.  This time the pattern is really just locking in during the first part of January.  Big difference.  In those 3 examples the pattern lasted a good month and then flipped.  But a pattern setting in December with the jet still going through seasonal fluctuation is much different than one setting in January when the wavelengths are broad and the jet takes on its dominant winter phase.  But I don't have all the answers...maybe those 3 should be used as hope that things could flip quick...although even in those examples quick wouldn't happen until February given the length of those patterns and that the same pattern is setting in a month later this year.  

If you want to sleep tonight I suggest you stop reading right now and disregard everything else I have to say because the rest of this is going to give you nightmares.  

 

 

 

Still reading.... you must really want punishment

Wow you really hate yourself....

ok I warned you...you asked for it, don't blame me I am NOT paying for the therapy.

Ok the reality those are NOT the real comps to this current situation.  There are 15 similar January months to what the guidance is projecting for the first half of January.  Assuming we do not get some kind of crazy fast shift...and nothing is hinting at that...it is highly likely January will feature a strong central PAC ridge and a +NAM state.  15 previous Januarys fit that.

This is the composite of those years

I think we can all agree that looks familiar...and is a good match to the current projections.

Here are the facts you asked for...and I warned you, you are not going to like it.

These are the Februarys that followed 

EVERY single one of those years was below average snowfall at BWI.  Only one wasnt below avg at DCA.

In all 15 of those years we only had one warning level snowfall in February and that was 2006.  This was the patern that February.

It took a complete reversal of the NAM state and great blocking to get the only good February we had following similar Januarys.  I know some don't consider that month good because it was one "fluke" storm and then warmed up...but IMO we were unlucky not to get more storms that month.  I don't see that storm as a fluke, I see it as a fluke that we only got that storm honestly.  But whatever...

IF you subtract that one year from the 15 February looks like this...

And there were no warning level snowfalls and the avg february snowfall in DC those 14 years was 1.4".  

And this is the February temps for those months

Bottom line... if the long range guidance is correct and what they are advertising day 10+ actually is reality... pray to god we get the 1 in 15 year miracle flip to a raging -NAO because otherwise we are toast and we are looking at a year like 1950, 1989, 2002, 2008, 2012... 

Maybe the CFS is right and the pac ridge ends up much further east than all other guidance and the MJO would indicate it will.  Hug that and pray.... and don't blame me, I just put together the data...I am not happy about it and I didn't make it be and I am praying the guidance is wrong.  

 

 

[cbmclean]

4 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Now that I am home with the data in front of me...I will answer this...but its gonna hurt.

I for one am proud that I had a hand in inspiring PSU to create this masterpiece.  I think this may set a record for most crushed hopes and dreams by one post.

I noticed in the stat pool that this nightmare actually repeated in THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS: 1989 - 1991.  Can you imagine what would happen to this forum if that stretch were to recur?

Actually, that gives me a sliver of hope.  We have been at a place approximately this bad before, once for three straight years.  So maybe we can recover from this in future years.

[Ralph Wiggum]

1 hour ago, losetoa6 said:

I'm eternally a glass half full guy and dont usually comment too much in the uber long range. ( past day 10 imo) but here's a stamp of hr 312 which is a couple days into the predicted shutout pattern.  And all caveats aside u can see potential alternative setups that are possible.  From gradiant to 50/50 lows to craptastic.  I personally think any craptastic pac puke will be very short lived and the pattern more progressive.  Just a hunch 

 

P003 plz

[cbmclean]

22 minutes ago, ravensrule said:

You could never top one of Ji's posts. 

I think he did.  Ji's posts are emotional outbursts of frustration.  The recent PSU post is just data.  Cold, hard data.  It can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with, and it absolutely will not stop until we are all curled up in a ball in our bedrooms with the blinds closed and clutching an old farmers almanac.

[Ralph Wiggum]

18 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Now that I am home with the data in front of me...I will answer this...but its gonna hurt.

First let me start with some hope...there were some similar patterns early in winter that flipped.  The best 3 examples of that are 1965/66, 1999/2000 and 2004/5.  This is the 1966 example.

It went from this

to this

and a pretty epic period in late January and then another big storm in February.  

However...all 3 of those examples the pacific ridge pattern set in early in December and was already breaking down in the first half of January.  This time the pattern is really just locking in during the first part of January.  Big difference.  In those 3 examples the pattern lasted a good month and then flipped.  But a pattern setting in December with the jet still going through seasonal fluctuation is much different than one setting in January when the wavelengths are broad and the jet takes on its dominant winter phase.  But I don't have all the answers...maybe those 3 should be used as hope that things could flip quick...although even in those examples quick wouldn't happen until February given the length of those patterns and that the same pattern is setting in a month later this year.  

If you want to sleep tonight I suggest you stop reading right now and disregard everything else I have to say because the rest of this is going to give you nightmares.  

 

 

 

Still reading.... you must really want punishment

Wow you really hate yourself....

ok I warned you...you asked for it, don't blame me I am NOT paying for the therapy.

Ok the reality those are NOT the real comps to this current situation.  There are 15 similar January months to what the guidance is projecting for the first half of January.  Assuming we do not get some kind of crazy fast shift...and nothing is hinting at that...it is highly likely January will feature a strong central PAC ridge and a +NAM state.  15 previous Januarys fit that.

This is the composite of those years

I think we can all agree that looks familiar...and is a good match to the current projections.

Here are the facts you asked for...and I warned you, you are not going to like it.

These are the Februarys that followed 

EVERY single one of those years was below average snowfall at BWI.  Only one wasnt below avg at DCA.

In all 15 of those years we only had one warning level snowfall in February and that was 2006.  This was the patern that February.

It took a complete reversal of the NAM state and great blocking to get the only good February we had following similar Januarys.  I know some don't consider that month good because it was one "fluke" storm and then warmed up...but IMO we were unlucky not to get more storms that month.  I don't see that storm as a fluke, I see it as a fluke that we only got that storm honestly.  But whatever...

IF you subtract that one year from the 15 February looks like this...

And there were no warning level snowfalls and the avg february snowfall in DC those 14 years was 1.4".  

And this is the February temps for those months

Bottom line... if the long range guidance is correct and what they are advertising day 10+ actually is reality... pray to god we get the 1 in 15 year miracle flip to a raging -NAO because otherwise we are toast and we are looking at a year like 1950, 1989, 2002, 2008, 2012... 

Maybe the CFS is right and the pac ridge ends up much further east than all other guidance and the MJO would indicate it will.  Hug that and pray.... and don't blame me, I just put together the data...I am not happy about it and I didn't make it be and I am praying the guidance is wrong.  

 

 

 

[psuhoffman]

As a follow up to that last post... the reason my mood shifted suddenly about a week or so ago was due to the sudden flip of the NAM state.  See back when I predicted a decent season I was relying on a similar Pacific to last year but with more high latitude blocking help.  1982 was one of my top analogs and so I was kind of expecting something like this...

1960 was also very high on the analog list

1960 took until later in winter to get good but in both cases what made it work was the HL blocking overcoming that pacific ridge.  That pac look isnt the end of the world if you have AO/NAO blocking.  That was what I was counting on.  I guess it was really foolish to go against the long term +AO/NAO cycle but imo the north pac SST, atlantic SST, QBO phase, solar,  and enso (weak warm following a nino) all argued for blocking this year.   

And through from November until a week ago...everything looked on track.  Maybe not for the 1982 analog...I was starting to think we would have to wait until a little later in winter... but the 1960 look kind of matched what we were seeing 2 weeks ago with persistent Atlantic help being muted by the PAC.  That pattern tends to get better later in winter.  But the sudden reversal of the NAM state to a 2+ std dev positive really tossed that out the window.   When the NAM state goes strongly positive this time of year it usually is a persistent issue.  It sometimes flips but usually not until very late like 2018.  Sometimes there is a fluke like 2006 where the NAM flips after being strongly + this time of year so there is always hope.   But the fact is both a strong pac ridge and a strongly positive AO are both persistent features and when combined are a horrible pattern.  That combination has lead to most of our epic fail dumpster fire winters.  

Just wanted to explain my thought process.  I am not reacting emotionally to one model run.  I am simply looking at the preponderance of evidence we are seeing...and I know historically that is the absolute worst pattern we could possibly see right now wrt our snow chances this winter.  

But there was that 1 year out of 15.  And there were some other years "somewhat" similar that flipped better.  If the guidance is off and that ridge ends up further northeast it throws all this doom and gloom out the window.  Or if the NAO flips all bets are off.  

[cbmclean]

3 minutes ago, Ralph Wiggum said:

 

Alright, that wins the thread.

[psuhoffman]

14 minutes ago, cbmclean said:

I for one am proud that I had a hand in inspiring PSU to create this masterpiece.  I think this may set a record for most crushed hopes and dreams by one post.

I noticed in the stat pool that this nightmare actually repeated in THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS: 1989 - 1991.  Can you imagine what would happen to this forum if that stretch were to recur?

Actually, that gives me a sliver of hope.  We have been at a place approximately this bad before, once for three straight years.  So maybe we can recover from this in future years.

I actually remember being in tears in 1992 at the end of that stretch (living in south Jersey at the time) after we were finally supposed to get a legit snowstorm (it was predicted to be 4-8") and it ended up 1" before turning to rain.  I think it was very late in that season and it had been 3 years without a decent snowfall including a few other busts where 3-6 or 4-8" forecasts the day of a storm turned into very little or nothing...and I actually cried a little bit.  It was awful.  

[Ralph Wiggum]

1 minute ago, psuhoffman said:

As a follow up to that last post... the reason my mood shifted suddenly about a week or so ago was due to the sudden flip of the NAM state.  See back when I predicted a decent season I was relying on a similar Pacific to last year but with more high latitude blocking help.  1982 was one of my top analogs and so I was kind of expecting something like this...

1960 was also very high on the analog list

1960 took until later in winter to get good but in both cases what made it work was the HL blocking overcoming that pacific ridge.  That pac look isnt the end of the world if you have AO/NAO blocking.  That was what I was counting on.  I guess it was really foolish to go against the long term +AO/NAO cycle but imo the north pac SST, atlantic SST, QBO phase, solar,  and enso (weak warm following a nino) all argued for blocking this year.   

And through from November until a week ago...everything looked on track.  Maybe not for the 1982 analog...I was starting to think we would have to wait until a little later in winter... but the 1960 look kind of matched what we were seeing 2 weeks ago with persistent Atlantic help being muted by the PAC.  That pattern tends to get better later in winter.  But the sudden reversal of the NAM state to a 2+ std dev positive really tossed that out the window.   When the NAM state goes strongly positive this time of year it usually is a persistent issue.  It sometimes flips but usually not until very late like 2018.  Sometimes there is a fluke like 2006 where the NAM flips after being strongly + this time of year so there is always hope.   But the fact is both a strong pac ridge and a strongly positive AO are both persistent features and when combined are a horrible pattern.  That combination has lead to most of our epic fail dumpster fire winters.  

Just wanted to explain my thought process.  I am not reacting emotionally to one model run.  I am simply looking at the preponderance of evidence we are seeing...and I know historically that is the absolute worst pattern we could possibly see right now wrt our snow chances this winter.  

But there was that 1 year out of 15.  And there were some other years "somewhat" similar that flipped better.  If the guidance is off and that ridge ends up further northeast it throws all this doom and gloom out the window.  Or if the NAO flips all bets are off.  

Not to derail the thread, but can you explain NAM or provide some reading/links for study? This is one that I have limited experience with. Thanks.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Just now, psuhoffman said:

I actually remember being in tears in 1992 at the end of that stretch (living in south Jersey at the time) after we were finally supposed to get a legit snowstorm (it was predicted to be 4-8") and it ended up 1" before turning to rain.  I think it was very late in that season and it had been 3 years without a decent snowfall including a few other busts where 3-6 or 4-8" forecasts the day of a storm turned into very little or nothing...and I actually cried a little bit.  It was awful.  

We had classes cancelled just SW of Philly and were forecast 4-8" or 5-10" and got zilch....not a flurry, not a drop of rain. That was a tough pill to swallow...thanks for bringing it up lol.

[psuhoffman]

16 minutes ago, cbmclean said:

I for one am proud that I had a hand in inspiring PSU to create this masterpiece.  I think this may set a record for most crushed hopes and dreams by one post.

I noticed in the stat pool that this nightmare actually repeated in THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS: 1989 - 1991.  Can you imagine what would happen to this forum if that stretch were to recur?

Actually, that gives me a sliver of hope.  We have been at a place approximately this bad before, once for three straight years.  So maybe we can recover from this in future years.

Actually there was a 4 year stretch from 1949-1952 also.  

But...what if this is year one of a 3/4 year stretch....???? 

[psuhoffman]

Just now, Ralph Wiggum said:

We had classes cancelled just SW of Philly and were forecast 4-8" or 5-10" and got zilch....not a flurry, not a drop of rain. That was a tough pill to swallow...thanks for bringing it up lol.

That wasn't the one that brought me to tears...that storm happened a little earlier in that god awful dumpster fire period but I remember it well.  It certainly contributed to my buildup of misery.  I was actually foretasted to get 8-14" being about 15 miles southeast of Philly and ended up with NOTHING.  I went to bed and the evening news said 8-14" southeast of Philly, 12-18" at the shore.  I knew something was wrong when I woke up expecting a few inches already and the sun was out and the wind was blowing.  I knew before I even turned on the news it was over.  Was a CRAZY sharp back edge...Atlantic City only about 35 miles southeast of me got 18".   I saw the dark clouds passing by to my east all day.  

[cbmclean]

Just now, psuhoffman said:

Actually there was a 4 year stretch from 1949-1952 also.  

But...what if this is year one of a 3/4 year stretch....???? 

To be frank I think it is completely rational to be concerned that we may be on the brink of the start of a 100 year stretch, for reasons that I know you know, but I will not mention in this thread.  On the other hand, I think it is not unreasonable to hope that the recent decadal wasteland of +NAO/AO may be unrelated to that dark force that we will not name and perhaps soon we will see the return to better NAO/AO behavior. 

[cbmclean]

9 minutes ago, Ralph Wiggum said:

Not to derail the thread, but can you explain NAM or provide some reading/links for study? This is one that I have limited experience with. Thanks.

I think the NAM is synonymous with the AO.

[psuhoffman]

10 minutes ago, Ralph Wiggum said:

Not to derail the thread, but can you explain NAM or provide some reading/links for study? This is one that I have limited experience with. Thanks.

NAM is the Northern Hemisphere Annular Mode, or what is more commonly called the Arctic Oscillation or AO.  

[psuhoffman]

3 minutes ago, cbmclean said:

To be frank I think it is completely rational to be concerned that we may be on the brink of the start of a 100 year stretch, for reasons that I know you know, but I will not mention in this thread.  On the other hand, I think it is not unreasonable to hope that the recent decadal wasteland of +NAO/AO may be unrelated to that dark force that we will not name and perhaps soon we will see the return to better NAO/AO behavior. 

Holy crap, I thought I was the doom and gloom one.... 

2 minutes ago, cbmclean said:

I think the NAM is synonymous with the AO.

yup, I wish the powers that be would settle on one common label for a lot of these things to stop the confusion.  

[yoda]

00z GooFuS is kinda hilarious from 240 on