Feb To Forget? - 2020 Discussion

[Ginx snewx]

3 minutes ago, Bostonseminole said:

"What if everything that came from the past was influenced by the future"

We have had as many whiffs as hits . That NW trend stuff  is a wishcast

[Typhoon Tip]

32 minutes ago, Chrisrotary12 said:

00z EPS looked great. 06z EPS was a let down. Really wish something besides the UKMET & 00z GFS would jump on board. 

Is everything onshore with 12z tomorrow's soundings?

What makes the GFS particularly annoying is that it's been a busted ravioli with this thing all along, and just when the other guidance show more progrssive flow and sort of nod to the GFS' previous ideas, it turns around at the surface. 

I dunno...I haven't read what others have written but, to me this seems like a stay the course as a 55%'er for strike and nothing's really changed, not based on the overnight. We're still just D5.5-ish ...which technically no guidance type really owns that range - at a baser operational level there's that. But just from my experience with guidance over the years ... a mid range product dump is not that uncommon, only to get it back passing into 96 hour leads. 

This is a difficult one for a couple of conflicting reasons. For one, the flow is speeding up again.  Fyi folks... the 06z GFS at 260 hours has 150+ no wind max running NE off the MA associated with that pseudo-adiabatic faux bomb... The system is unlikely, but the hemisphere has seen these hyper jets on a few occasions this year; this one is the more extreme I've personally seen modeled - though as said, the tapestry of that period is likely to change, it's just that huge wind maxes of that ilk are not unprecedented.  I can tell you, if anything like that ever did happen, that would be some kind of true freak of nature.  The hydrostatic forcing almost appears physically implausible at that extreme. Interesting.. 

So anyway, ... the flow is speeding up and we have rest state geopotential wind velocities between 50 and 70 kts outside of S/W wind maxes. That should make phasing and timing problematic.  So, unraveling solutions like the 00z panoply are not exactly unwarranted.  Yet, the R-wave is unusually long, which is both required for faster balanced speed, but, can be made up for if the entire construct of the flow is actually progressive - which the period in question appears to be struggling with how much so that is the case.  ... 

As a seasonal trend... bombs are having trouble ( save NS/NF!)... They are being consummately over-modeled between D's 5 to 10's ...only to end up with these streaky pallid lows that are middling and pedestrian ..pick the adjective.  I see this as already doing that right before our eyes... or at least, trying to get there at least excuse.  I mentioned several days ago that I thought a middling low bottle rocketing off the M/A in a failed phase - in no small part related to x-coordinate falling out of sync with the y due to velocity saturation) ... this overnight series seems to be heading in that way if clumbsy and so-so agreement with details.  

Weird winter... We got the early storm but ever since it's been either excessive middle troposphere wind velocities offering canvased destructive wave interference, or... so relaxed that we wobble weak gradient features that don't do much - this latter character basically the last couple of weeks.  But, we may be flipping back into rage wind again... One thing I've also noticed is that the AO has been predominately positive this year, and that's probably adding to the wind contamination issues... We have that over the top of the already well-documented HC expansion issue, and what you end up with are boreal winter heights kissing a surplus of Global latent heat and there we are with maximizing jets...  You can't win...because if the AO does crash and we get bona fide blocking/south suppression of the mean polar jet, it's going to squeeze matters that way too... But like in 2015, that happened, but so extreme that we end up on the N side of the jet in the relative slower region of deep heights and low QPF/high ratio bombs.   

[ORH_wxman]

3 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

Because he doesn’t want anyone west or sw of him snowing while he fights marine layers.

Honestly, I'd rather have cirrus than cold rain in a vacuum....so can't blame that line of thinking.

But I'm also a skier and sympathetic to the ski community, so I would personally rather have a hugger that gives me ptype issues than a whiff and see ski country get buried....but for those who are not skiers, I wouldn't hold it against them to rather have overcast or cirrus instead of a 34F pounding rainstorm.

[40/70 Benchmark]

19 minutes ago, Bostonseminole said:

why would you want a miss?

Becuase I don't want rain.

[40/70 Benchmark]

Just now, ORH_wxman said:

Honestly, I'd rather have cirrus than cold rain in a vacuum....so can't blame that line of thinking.

But I'm also a skier and sympathetic to the ski community, so I would personally rather have a hugger that gives me ptype issues than a whiff and see ski country get buried....but for those who are not skiers, I wouldn't hold it against them to rather have overcast or cirrus instead of a 34F pounding rainstorm.

Thank you.

[TalcottWx]

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Becuase I don't want rain.

Rain is the worst

[dryslot]

Well its not going to matter who wants it east or who wants it west, Its going to go where the upper air pattern wants to take it and the phasing or non phasing of both the north and southern jet stream with these s/w's, I think were still a good day away from determining any of that so your stuck with a bevy of solutions until models figure out the placement of the trough and how these s/w's end up interacting with ea other which will ultimately give you where the SLP is going to track in the end.

[SouthCoastMA]

The 'you are selfish to not want rain' take is a bit much. Yeah, I'll take the cirrus. 

[weatherwiz]

I'll take rain, snow, sleet, freezing rain, hail, grauple, rain/snow mix...not picky. 

[ORH_wxman]

4 minutes ago, SouthCoastMA said:

The 'you are selfish to not want rain' take is a bit much. Yeah, I'll take the cirrus. 

Agreed....and nobody controls the weather so the whole discussion is really dumb anyway. Most people hate rainy days in general....time for the farmers to get angry at people who wish for dry conditions on a weekend in May?

[512high]

14 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

What makes the GFS particularly annoying is that it's been a busted ravioli with this thing all along, and just when the other guidance show more progrssive flow and sort of nod to the GFS' previous ideas, it turns around at the surface. 

I dunno...I haven't read what others have written but, to me this seems like a stay the course as a 55%'er for strike and nothing's really changed, not based on the overnight. We're still just D5.5-ish ...which technically no guidance type really owns that range - at a baser operational level there's that. But just from my experience with guidance over the years ... a mid range product dump is not that uncommon, only to get it back passing into 96 hour leads. 

This is a difficult one for a couple of conflicting reasons. For one, the flow is speeding up again.  Fyi folks... the 06z GFS at 260 hours has 150+ no wind max running NE off the MA associated with that pseudo-adiabatic faux bomb... The system is unlikely, but the hemisphere has seen these hyper jets on a few occasions this year; this one is the more extreme I've personally seen modeled - though as said, the tapestry of that period is likely to change, it's just that huge wind maxes of that ilk are not unprecedented.  I can tell you, if anything like that ever did happen, that would be some kind of true freak of nature.  The hydrostatic forcing almost appears physically implausible at that extreme. Interesting.. 

So anyway, ... the flow is speeding up and we have rest state geopotential wind velocities between 50 and 70 kts outside of S/W wind maxes. That should make phasing and timing problematic.  So, unraveling solutions like the 00z panoply are not exactly unwarranted.  Yet, the R-wave is unusually long, which is both required for faster balanced speed, but, can be made up for if the entire construct of the flow is actually progressive - which the period in question appears to be struggling with how much so that is the case.  ... 

As a seasonal trend... bombs are having trouble ( save NS/NF!)... They are being consummately over-modeled between D's 5 to 10's ...only to end up with these streaky pallid lows that are middling and pedestrian ..pick the adjective.  I see this as already doing that right before our eyes... or at least, trying to get there at least excuse.  I mentioned several days ago that I thought a middling low bottle rocketing off the M/A in a failed phase - in no small part related to x-coordinate falling out of sync with the y due to velocity saturation) ... this overnight series seems to be heading in that way if clumbsy and so-so agreement with details.  

Weird winter... We got the early storm but ever since it's been either excessive middle troposphere wind velocities offering canvased destructive wave interference, or... so relaxed that we wobble weak gradient features that don't do much - this latter character basically the last couple of weeks.  But, we may be flipping back into rage wind again... One thing I've also noticed is that the AO has been predominately positive this year, and that's probably adding to the wind contamination issues... We have that over the top of the already well-documented HC expansion issue, and what you end up with are boreal winter heights kissing a surplus of Global latent heat and there we are with maximizing jets...  You can't win...because if the AO does crash and we get bona fide blocking/south suppression of the mean polar jet, it's going to squeeze matters that way too... But like in 2015, that happened, but so extreme that we end up on the N side of the jet in the relative slower region of deep heights and low QPF/high ratio bombs.   

So if that happened in 2015.....there is a glimmer of "hope" yes?

[40/70 Benchmark]

3 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

I'll take rain, snow, sleet, freezing rain, hail, grauple, rain/snow mix...not picky. 

What a meteorological martyr....

[Ginx snewx]

I keep thinking back to mid Nov when all the analogs had a 89 pattern,  we know what happened after. Seems like it happened again

[Bostonseminole]

15 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Becuase I don't want rain.

sure if it's between those 2 solutions then yes agreed.  

[weatherwiz]

Just now, Ginx snewx said:

I keep thinking back to mid Nov when all the analogs had a 89 pattern,  we know what happened after. Seems like it happened again

let's hope those 89 analogs stick around come July  

[ORH_wxman]

Just now, Ginx snewx said:

I keep thinking back to mid Nov when all the analogs had a 89 pattern,  we know what happened after. Seems like it happened again

Heh....except the historic cold in December....most areas were near average temps in Dec. This February is looking a lot more promising than Feb 1990....but obviously things can still change. We did come pretty close to matching the putrid January 1990.

[Typhoon Tip]

2 minutes ago, 512high said:

So if that happened in 2015.....there is a glimmer of "hope" yes?

No ... just mentioning that as an afterthought for conceptual comparisons and so forth. 

Since nothing in a universe that is ultimately built on quantum uncertainty principles has a probability of perfectly 0% ... there's always hope though -

[Typhoon Tip]

15 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Heh....except the historic cold in December....most areas were near average temps in Dec. This February is looking a lot more promising than Feb 1990....but obviously things can still change. We did come pretty close to matching the putrid January 1990.

I don't think it diminishes the essence of the point he's making - you know this .. but there's no time requirement that strictly invalidates. Cold early is the take-away. Just sayn'

That said, I don't believe 1989 can be used as an analog with the climate flux, anyway.  In fact, most analog methods are in trouble when comparing derivatives from then, to now... as the Global physical 'atmospheric machinery' that is ultimately instructed/govern/a response to distribution of heat source and sink, has empirically changed and therefore it is reasonable to question different "gears" so to speak. 

That's why super Nino several years ago only registered weakly in global statistical packages ... list goes on.   Not gonna get into it, because one can be black and white right and people will attempt to controvert merely because they don't like it - blah blah.  Worse yet ... we live in a post-Industrial Revolution relative utopia of convenience that's causing a neggie cultural feed-back, where people can rely on faux implausibilities to sooth, and systemic/recreational denial, and not have to suffer the consequence of their decisions because said IR advantages is there to clean up the proverbial shit of their mistakes and stupid thinking.  Enter the internet and now you have islands and schismatic belief systems that are thus re-inforced for not sensing consequence.  'Hey, we gotta be right, then.'  

That's why GW doesn't exist by the way..  

[weatherwiz]

Just now, Typhoon Tip said:

I don't think it diminishes the essence of the point he's making - 

That said, I don't believe 1989 can be used as an analog with the climate flux, anyway.  In fact, most analog methods are in trouble when comparing derivatives from then, to now... as the Global physical machinery that is ultimately instructed/govern/a response to distribution of heat source and sink, has different "gears" so to speak. 

That's why super Nino several years ago only registered weakly in global statistical packages ... list goes on.   Not gonna get into it.  You can be black and white right and people will attempt to controvert merely because they don't like it - blah blah  

Totally agree...not only is the climate shift a major part in this but the expanding of the data base too. 

[TauntonBlizzard2013]

I’ll take my chances with a 6z eps look 

[dendrite]

9 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

let's hope those 89 analogs stick around come July  

July of 90? Why?

[Ginx snewx]

10 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Heh....except the historic cold in December....most areas were near average temps in Dec. This February is looking a lot more promising than Feb 1990....but obviously things can still change. We did come pretty close to matching the putrid January 1990.

The 89 pattern analog appeared Nov 3rd. The Nov 8th to Dec 8th period was -6 to -8. Feb 1990 is on the analog list this morning 

[weatherwiz]

Just now, dendrite said:

July of 90? Why?

1989. (I know the reference is the 1989-1990 season but just keep it at 1989 :D)

But 1990 was a solid tornado season for NY and PA

[tamarack]

8 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Heh....except the historic cold in December....most areas were near average temps in Dec. This February is looking a lot more promising than Feb 1990....but obviously things can still change. We did come pretty close to matching the putrid January 1990.

At my then residence in Gardiner, we had 5 warning criteria storms in Jan-Feb that totaled 45.5".  No blockbusters (biggest was 11") and none of Dec's brutal cold, but AN snow for those months as latitude was our friend.

[ORH_wxman]

1 minute ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I don't think it diminishes the essence of the point he's making - you know this .. but there's not time requirement that strictly guiding that. Just sayn'

That said, I don't believe 1989 can be used as an analog with the climate flux, anyway.  In fact, most analog methods are in trouble when comparing derivatives from then, to now... as the Global physical machinery that is ultimately instructed/govern/a response to distribution of heat source and sink, has empirically changed and therefore it is reasonable to question different "gears" so to speak. 

That's why super Nino several years ago only registered weakly in global statistical packages ... list goes on.   Not gonna get into it.  You can be black and white right and people will attempt to controvert merely because they don't like it - blah blah  

I don't really think the pattern looked anything like Dec '89 anyway. Certainly not for the incredibly long sustained period that year was. We did have a pretty good cold period late Nov/eearly Dec but it lasted about 2-3 weeks and way less intense.

I'm not nearly as much of a fan of ignoring analogs as you are...difference in opinion I guess. Seeing a who's who of past epic snow patterns when looking at analogs of the ensembles in 2015 gave me confidence in a very good period. Maybe you're referring strictly to ENSO though...

[Typhoon Tip]

11 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

I don't really think the pattern looked anything like Dec '89 anyway. Certainly not for the incredibly long sustained period that year was. We did have a pretty good cold period late Nov/eearly Dec but it lasted about 2-3 weeks and way less intense.

I'm not nearly as much of a fan of ignoring analogs as you are...difference in opinion I guess. Seeing a who's who of past epic snow patterns when looking at analogs of the ensembles in 2015 gave me confidence in a very good period. Maybe you're referring strictly to ENSO though...

Lol, ha...right, there's that too... Did it even look like it - uh...maybe, maybe not.

I wasn't honestly paying attention but then again, I'm admittedly predisposed to eye-rolling with that stuff for the reasons I mentioned related to not being very trusting of analogs, and/or as reliant therein, because of CC. I'm not saying ignore them. I didnt' say that.. I said, in trouble. I'm not sure it is wise to think otherwise, when changing the thermal source and sink mechanisms.  My suspicion is rooted in analytic thinking - not what I want by the way... a distinctive difference to the climate honk-debate.

Anyway, I almost suggest if the temp curve looks similar, it's because sometimes you can flip a coin and get heads twice.  Just can't seem to do that with my gf  

[weatherwiz]

12z NAM gets into the range of Friday evening now...the differences in H5 between the models even for Friday evening (which isn't entirely that far out there) is insane. Hopefully over these next 24-hours there is some sort of clustering/agreement of the large-scale features. 

[ORH_wxman]

Just now, weatherwiz said:

12z NAM gets into the range of Friday evening now...the differences in H5 between the models even for Friday evening (which isn't entirely that far out there) is insane. Hopefully over these next 24-hours there is some sort of clustering/agreement of the large-scale features. 

There's going to be some shifting as the shortwaves get closer to shore and come onshore...and not the just the shortwaves, but other features like the jet streaks that are going to be pummeling the west coast and affecting the ridging, etc.

 

[Ginx snewx]

12 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

I don't really think the pattern looked anything like Dec '89 anyway. Certainly not for the incredibly long sustained period that year was. We did have a pretty good cold period late Nov/eearly Dec but it lasted about 2-3 weeks and way less intense.

I'm not nearly as much of a fan of ignoring analogs as you are...difference in opinion I guess. Seeing a who's who of past epic snow patterns when looking at analogs of the ensembles in 2015 gave me confidence in a very good period. Maybe you're referring strictly to ENSO though...

Disagree . That period between Nov 8th and Dec 8th had a lot of similarities,  no 2 analogs being exact but hemispherical close enough. Judging by 2 m temp similarity not as cold but analogs are based on upper air 

[Damage In Tolland]

Why are we talking 89?Doesn't the mid and LR look weenie?