February 2020 General Discussions & Observations Thread

[JerseyWx]

14 minutes ago, CarLover014 said:

58* here so far. I think ill take off the roof and do some cruising when I get home before throwing the cover on for all this rain later in the week. And pray that the Subie will start.

Is that Corvette yours?  I have a newer 5.0 Mustang but am going to trade for an F-150 soon.  If only I could have both

[Brian5671]

54 degrees here-feels like April with the warm sun....

[NittanyWx]

On 1/31/2020 at 5:36 PM, Maestrobjwa said:

 

Hello! Visiting from the Mid-ATL forum...We had a similar discussion during the Fall. One theory that was floated was in reference to a "lag" effect (I cannot remember what study was cited)--supposing that sometimes it was the winters after the minimum during which the minimum from the previous year may have affected blocking (for example, the previous solar minimum was listed as ending around December 2008. Of course it wasn't that winter but the following one that had the blocking. Now perhaps someone else may want to chime in on this "lag" theory.

 

I'm really having a hard time buying it, but I suppose we'll get another data point next winter.  The #1 correlation I see cited by those who believe in solar theory is the NAO correlation, whereby the thought is that the high-latitude blocking over Greenland would be frequent/strong enough to be statistically relevant in peak solar minima years (this year definitely qualifies as a peak minima year).  Those who believe the theory often use Monte Carlo simulations or other methodologies to prove it.  However, I went back and isolated the past 5 peak solar minima years and found that we had just as many cases that were NAO positive as were negative when we average out NDJFM.

 

My theory is that we've been fooled largely by small sample size, recency bias (08-09) and randomness.  Maybe there's an element of climate change in there too, but I'm coming around more to the idea that it was never really that robust a relationship to begin with.

 

 

[NittanyWx]

On 1/31/2020 at 5:09 PM, Isotherm said:

 

Solar activity and its attendant proxies have significant utility if one recognizes how to employ it. Those who argued solar minimum induced blocking for the present winter did so with incomplete knowledge. Solar forcing can modulate high latitude geopotential heights, but it must be analyzed in concert with other variables, such as the QBO for example. Thus, linear correlations between SSN and NAO values will be unimpressive because there are other variables masking and confounding. There is a false belief that low solar activity is both a necessary and sufficient condition for high latitude blocking, but that isn't veridical. It's a much more complex relationship. I did not think the suppressed solar activity would lead to a -NAO/AO this winter.

 

Which is fine and all, but neither the QBO nor solar cycles are able to exhibit a statistically significant correlation to snowfall and 2mt.  Which is what makes this whole exercise challenging and makes me really skeptical about how much we can truly use solar cycles for blocking predictability purposes.

 

IOD, I'm sure will shoulder the blame and your point about solar minimum in concert with other things potentially affecting high latitude blocking is well-taken.  We absolutely should be looking at other things, and I personally was a 'warm' outlier with my seasonal early this year (obviously not this warm) for a host of other reasons.  But one look at stratospheric zonal wind tells me that there's a lot more going on here than people want to believe they understand on the solar/PV modulation piece in isolation.  It's part of the grey area of the science, and I think we get fooled by noise a lot in this field.

[TJW014]

1 hour ago, JerseyWx said:

Is that Corvette yours?  I have a newer 5.0 Mustang but am going to trade for an F-150 soon.  If only I could have both

Yes. That is mine. It is a 1996. It's a work in progress as I've got some stuff to repair/restore, with the biggest being a new coat of paint. She looks a lot better in the pictures than in person. All for $4,000.

[JerseyWx]

2 minutes ago, CarLover014 said:

Yes. That is mine. It is a 1996. It's a work in progress as I've got some stuff to repair/restore, with the biggest being a new coat of paint. She looks a lot better in the pictures than in person. All for $4,000.

Nice, I have an affinity for the LT1/LT4 engine.  My Dad still has his 1994 Camaro which is actually what got me into cars years ago when I was younger.

[Isotherm]

26 minutes ago, NittanyWx said:

 

Which is fine and all, but neither the QBO nor solar cycles are able to exhibit a statistically significant correlation to snowfall and 2mt.  Which is what makes this whole exercise challenging and makes me really skeptical about how much we can truly use solar cycles for blocking predictability purposes.

 

IOD, I'm sure will shoulder the blame and your point about solar minimum in concert with other things potentially affecting high latitude blocking is well-taken.  We absolutely should be looking at other things, and I personally was a 'warm' outlier with my seasonal early this year (obviously not this warm) for a host of other reasons.  But one look at stratospheric zonal wind tells me that there's a lot more going on here than people want to believe they understand on the solar/PV modulation piece in isolation.  It's part of the grey area of the science, and I think we get fooled by noise a lot in this field.

 

I certainly do not disagree with your comments, and it's much more complicated even than I alluded to in my highly simplified post. I went warmer than normal/less snow than normal this winter as well in my seasonal  for numerous other reasons, too -- so that's interesting, potentially we are examining some of the same variables. 

Re, correlations to snowfall and 2m temperatures, the issue w/ meteorology, as I'm sure you know, is that many of these relationships are indirect and obfuscated by other contemporaneous signals, so finding the elusive direct correlation to snowfall might be quite difficult [although there are many indicators of high utility in my opinion].

I also disagree with any remarks pinning the blame solely on the IOD.

[TJW014]

1 minute ago, JerseyWx said:

Nice, I have an affinity for the LT1/LT4 engine.  My Dad still has his 1994 Camaro which is actually what got me into cars years ago when I was younger.

Mine is an auto. All LT1's had autos that year. Just couldn't afford an LT4 six-speed or else I would've snatched one up.

BTW, flirting with 60* here. 

[rgwp96]

2 hours ago, JerseyWx said:

Interesting.  I'd say .25" here too.  What are you on the season?

Right around 14 inches 

[JerseyWx]

57 minutes ago, CarLover014 said:

Mine is an auto. All LT1's had autos that year. Just couldn't afford an LT4 six-speed or else I would've snatched one up.

BTW, flirting with 60* here. 

Yeah it's what you can afford.  The LT1 is a workhorse but the Optispark is a b**ch.  Eventually want to do a 600+ hp LS3 build or a boosted Coyote.

37 minutes ago, rgwp96 said:

Right around 14 inches 

13.25" for me

[bluewave]

58 degrees now at Newark. 

http://wxweb.meteostar.com/meteogram/link.shtml?choice=Kewr

[Allsnow]

Enjoy today and tomorrow....probably won’t be this nice again for a while. Ugh 

[Rtd208]

 

[MJO812]

Just now, Rtd208 said:

 

How can this same pattern last so long ?

[Allsnow]

9 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

How can this same pattern last so long ?

Because the mjo keeps dying and reforming in 4/5/6. Only way we get into some type of snowy pattern is if the Pv weakens or gets into a better position 

[bluewave]

44 minutes ago, Allsnow said:

Because the mjo keeps dying and reforming in 4/5/6. Only way we get into some type of snowy pattern is if the Pv weakens or gets into a better position 

Yeah, models going really strong on the forcing around phase 6 with the near record warm SST’s out there.

 

[blizzardofozz]

52 minutes ago, Rtd208 said:

Well, look at the bright side,  at least they aren't advertising a pattern change that never materializes 

 

 

[MJO812]

46 minutes ago, Allsnow said:

Because the mjo keeps dying and reforming in 4/5/6. Only way we get into some type of snowy pattern is if the Pv weakens or gets into a better position 

2nd winter in a row  where meteorologists disregarded the mjo.

[Ericjcrash]

4 hours ago, CarLover014 said:

Yes. That is mine. It is a 1996. It's a work in progress as I've got some stuff to repair/restore, with the biggest being a new coat of paint. She looks a lot better in the pictures than in person. All for $4,000.

It's a c4. The redheaded stepchild. I have a very different c4 Audi. 5 cylinder turbo. 

Tale of 2 seasons in as many days, yesterday was definitely a winter's day and today felt like baseball season.

[NittanyWx]

4 hours ago, Isotherm said:

Re, correlations to snowfall and 2m temperatures, the issue w/ meteorology, as I'm sure you know, is that many of these relationships are indirect and obfuscated by other contemporaneous signals, so finding the elusive direct correlation to snowfall might be quite difficult [although there are many indicators of high utility in my opinion].

 

Sure, but you know how the thinking goes: 'This looks like more blocking so it's gonna be cold and snowy'.  

 

On the surface temps though, I've definitely found 1 and 2 month lead-time signals that exhibit a good amount of skill, but there are always competing influences.  Just stating solar cycles and the QBO weren't 2 of them.  Yet, they get a ton of play in the seasonal space in winter.  In reality, the QBO is a much better rainfall anomaly predictor in certain on/off equator deep convective regions.   

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, WestBabylonWeather said:

Actually,  The last comparable solar minimum led to the little ice age

 

exciting times ahead weather wise?

 

https://www.livescience.com/61716-sun-cooling-global-warming.html

Not this time around.

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/archive/2010/weakening-sun-would-hardly-slow-global-warming

Most likely, a new Grand Minimum of solar activity would diminish global mean temperatures in the year 2100 by about 0.1 or 0.2 degrees Celsius,” says Stefan Rahmstorf, head of Earth System Analysis at PIK. Even taking into account all uncertainties in the temperature reconstruction, the forcings, and the model physics, the overall uncertainty is estimated to be at most a factor of three, so the solar cooling effect would very likely not exceed 0.3 degrees.

“A new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions,” the authors conclude. Moreover, any offset of global warming due to a Grand Minimum of solar activity would merely be a temporary effect, since solar minima typically last for several decades to a century at most.

Current temperature data also confirm that the effect of low solar activity on the climate is very small”, notes Rahmstorf. The current minimum has not noticeably slowed down global warming.

Projected changes to the global mean temperature depend more strongly on emissions than solar activity. Credit: PIK

[snowman19]

The new Euro weeklies through March: “It’s over Johnny”. -PNA, ++AO, ++NAO, SE ridge.....

[White Gorilla]

25 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

The new Euro weeklies through March: “It’s over Johnny”. -PNA, ++AO, ++NAO, SE ridge.....

Are you a mild and snowless winter fan?  Your posts often seem to indicate so. There are many who are in the general public, I would say the majority, but not many on weather forums. 

[Dan76]

16 minutes ago, White Gorilla said:

Are you a mild and snowless winter fan?  Your posts often seem to indicate so. There are many who are in the general public, I would say the majority, but not many on weather forums. 

So far he hasn't been that far off just saying.

[MJO812]

Just now, Dan76 said:

So far he hasn't been that far off just saying.

Because he always says the same thing. Come on man. You have been on here for a while.

[White Gorilla]

10 minutes ago, Dan76 said:

So far he hasn't been that far off just saying.

Not questioning his forecasting skill. 

[MJO812]

18 minutes ago, White Gorilla said:

Are you a mild and snowless winter fan?  Your posts often seem to indicate so. There are many who are in the general public, I would say the majority, but not many on weather forums. 

Yes he is

[White Gorilla]

11 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

Because he always says the same thing. Come on man. You have been on here for a while.

Yes it is the stark similarities and commonalities in all his posts.  I suspect Snow88 is a cold weather and snow fan for similar reasons.. Common threads in his posts. 

[snowman19]

1 minute ago, MJO812 said:

Because he always says the same thing. Come on man. You have been on here for a while.

People in glass houses....

[donsutherland1]

Today saw widespread readings in the 50s and 60s in the Middle Atlantic region. High temperatures included:

Atlantic City: 64°; Baltimore: 67° (old record: 66°, 1932); Bridgeport: 53°; Clarksburg, WV: 67° (old record: 66°, 1989); Islip: 53°; New York City: 57°; Newark: 58°; Philadelphia: 60°; Sterling: 67° (old record: 66°, 1991); Washington, DC: 63°; and, Wilmington, DE: 64° (tied record set in 1991).

Across the Atlantic where winter has been largely absent, even greater warmth prevailed. Locations in France and Italy saw record daily highs and, in cases, February record high temperatures. Europe remains on track for a much warmer than normal February with the greatest warmth likely occurring in eastern Europe and western Russia.

Tomorrow will be another unseasonably mild day. Overall, the first week of February will be much warmer than normal in the Middle Atlantic and southern New England areas. The February 1-7 mean temperature will likely average 40.0° or higher in New York City.

Since 1869, New York City has had 10 prior cases where the temperature averaged 40.0° or above during the February 1-7 period. All 10 cases saw a warmer than normal February. The mean monthly temperature was 38.2°. Eight of those cases occurred during 1990 or later.

Somewhat colder air could return late in the first week of February or just afterward. However, Arctic air is unlikely. In addition, no significant snowfalls (6" or above) are likely through at least the first week of February for Washington, DC to New York City and the surrounding region.

Consistent with the pattern and supported by most of the guidance, a pair of storms will likely snowfall to parts of northern Pennsylvania, central and upstate New York, and northern New England Wednesday night and Thursday and Thursday night into Friday. The second storm will likely be the larger of the two. The major cities from Washington to New York City will likely see no more than a light accumulation from that storm. Another system could follow during the weekend.

The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.2°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was +0.8°C for the week centered around January 29. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.07°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.52°C. The remainder of winter 2019-2020 will likely feature neutral-warm to weak El Niño conditions.

The SOI was -8.79 today.

Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was +1.279.

The guidance suggests that the AO could spend an extended period at or above +3.000 beginning during the second week of the month. Since 1950, none of the 36 days during which the AO was +3.000 or above saw daily snowfall of 1" or more in New York City or Philadelphia. During the overall February 5-20, 1950-2019 period, daily snowfall of 1" or more occurred on 8% days in New York City and 7% of days in Philadelphia. The biggest snowstorm during that timeframe when the AO was +3.000 or above was February 9-10, 1982. Boston picked up 4.0" snow; New York City received 0.3" snow; and, Philadelphia saw 0.6" snow.

No significant stratospheric warming is likely through February 11. Wave 2 activity will dissipate following the first week of February. Overall, most of the stratosphere is forecast to remain cold on the EPS through into the second week of February.

On February 2, the MJO was in Phase 5 at an amplitude of 0.593 (RMM). The February 1-adjusted amplitude was 0.623.