February Medium/Long Range Discussion

[Bob Chill]

40 minutes ago, Baltimorewx said:

I think you’re a fraud. You’re literally expecting a computer to model a chaotic global atmosphere perfectly. Can you just stop, Jesus. If you don’t want to discuss long range weather and the models, then don’t come on the forum. Some of the best snowstorms were sniffed out more than 5 days out. 

Don't bother. He only comes by to express his angst in the face of a letdown and/or bust. No mention of Feb 2010, Jan 2011, Feb 14th 2014, Jan 2016, or any other storm that was nailed a week+ in advance. Jan 2016 was 10 days out. Models are amazing and energy traders make mass fortunes using long range guidance. If people are willing to bet 10s or 100s of millions of dollars on long range weather models then it's unquestionable what kind of value they have. 

Every rational person here knows that our long range discussion is grounded in the fact that we have nothing else to talk about because it currently sucks. Progressive storms can't be trusted outside of 72 hours but there is no harm in tracking because it's fun. Lastly, long range disco participation is compeltely optional. If you dont believe in it then don't participate... at all. Its not that complicated here 

[anotherman]

Don't bother. He only comes by to express his angst in the face of a letdown and/or bust. No mention of Feb 2010, Jan 2011, Feb 14th 2014, Jan 2016, or any other storm that was nailed a week+ in advance. Jan 2016 was 10 days out. Models are amazing and energy traders make mass fortunes using long range guidance. If people are willing to bet 10s or 100s of millions of dollars on long range weather models then it's unquestionable what kind of value they have. 
Every rational person here knows that our long range discussion is grounded in the fact that we have nothing else to talk about because it currently sucks. Progressive storms can't be trusted outside of 72 hours but there is no harm in tracking because it's fun. Lastly, long range disco participation is compeltely optional. If you dont believe in it then don't participate... at all. Its not that complicated here 

Why even come here if you reject science? The models are the sum of years of research and experimentation. I don’t get it.

[Bob Chill]

Just now, anotherman said:

Why even come here if you reject science? The models are the sum of years of research and experimentation. I don’t get it.

There's a pattern to the posts if you pay attention. They only happen when an event goes poof. I think it's a coping mechanism or something. My coping mechanism is taunting Ji. He enjoys the volley so it's a win win. Lol

[Baltimorewx]

8 minutes ago, Bob Chill said:

Don't bother. He only comes by to express his angst in the face of a letdown and/or bust. No mention of Feb 2010, Jan 2011, Feb 14th 2014, Jan 2016, or any other storm that was nailed a week+ in advance. Jan 2016 was 10 days out. Models are amazing and energy traders make mass fortunes using long range guidance. If people are willing to bet 10s or 100s of millions of dollars on long range weather models then it's unquestionable what kind of value they have. 

Every rational person here knows that our long range discussion is grounded in the fact that we have nothing else to talk about because it currently sucks. Progressive storms can't be trusted outside of 72 hours but there is no harm in tracking because it's fun. Lastly, long range disco participation is compeltely optional. If you dont believe in it then don't participate... at all. Its not that complicated here 

Yeah but I actually think the models have been pretty good, reasonably thinking. Yeah of course they have shown some phantom digital snow, but for the most part they have been consistent on the pattern being progressive and most storms cutting to our west and that is what exactly has happened. I’ve done pretty well from a forecasting standpoint for the most part this year, when taking in the models but also using my head and climatology. I mostly come on here to hear other thoughts and occasionally be belligerent. 

[Bob Chill]

16 minutes ago, Baltimorewx said:

Yeah but I actually think the models have been pretty good, reasonably thinking. Yeah of course they have shown some phantom digital snow, but for the most part they have been consistent on the pattern being progressive and most storms cutting to our west and that is what exactly has happened. I’ve done pretty well from a forecasting standpoint for the most part, when taking in the models but also using my head and climatology. I mostly come on here to hear other thoughts and occasionally be bashful. 

Managing expectations is the only way to insulate yourself from the inevitable fails. Here are my simple rules:

Clippers cannot be trusted/expected until inside of 48 hours and even then...

Progressive shortwaves of any kind cannot be trusted until inside of 72 hours and only when there's full consensus from ops and ens. Outliers can never be tossed at that range. Nams/rgem/herpederps can be tossed until 24-36 hours.

Blocked storms are sniffed out early but final track/strength/progression start coming into focus inside of 120 hours. This only applies to whether or not your yard is getting snow or no snow. Amounts are figured out inside of 72 hours but you can usually bank on getting something when all models show snow with good blocking between 96-120 hours. Expecting a d4 15-20" solution is sketchy at best and caution is advised. Ji cannot follow this rule but it does serve as extra entertainment between model runs. 

Oh, forgot one other important rule for snowstorms. Miller Bs cannot be trusted until after it stops and you are shoveling (or not). 

Big ice outside of 72 hours is almost always a mirage. Expect a glaze to .25 tops at all times unless something very anomlaous is in place like a true arctic airmass. Then we can bring up the 93-94 analogs for a few days before getting a glaze to .25 tops. 

 

[CAPE]

1 hour ago, WEATHER53 said:

Yes we know you have appointed yourself the Big Dog here with every 8 paragraph post. Over the last almost 20 years we’ve had a number claim stake for a few years 

Models are a fraud. They waste taxpayers money trying to solve a riddle they cant

No money should be spend on anything past 3 days maybe 5. The reason-models can’t do it. Maybe 10% of the time they stick with a hit and it happens. Otherwise it’s show all sorts of outcomes  in the 5-15 day and at 4 per days that’s 20-60 outcomes. Guess what, one will be right so present that to Feds as your success come Federsl funding renewal time.

My enjoyment comes from making observations doing the event and following things from 3 days in. I derive no satisfaction from endlessly changing example of possible weather, I want to forecast as to most probable outcome. Models can’t do that and have not tightened things up in last 20 years do let’s tryanother route.

Pretty incoherent, but I think I get it.

No one here gives a shiit what you derive satisfaction from.

Tell us more about how "inaccurate" platinum RTDs are to blame for DCA UHI.

[das]

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

No one here gives a shiit what you derive satisfaction from  

I care. 

[CAPE]

2 minutes ago, das said:

I care. 

lol

I bet you think models are a fraud and a waste of taxpayer money too.

Unsolvable riddles!

[das]

2 hours ago, WEATHER53 said:

Models are a fraud. They waste taxpayers money trying to solve a riddle they cant

No money should be spend on anything past 3 days maybe 5.

This makes me sad. Having watched your posts over the last 15+ years, I’m surprised by this reasoning and hope it’s just a by-product of the acutely bad period in the middle of a crap winter. 

[das]

Mani I come in here to commiserate our lost digital snow for Saturday night (since I’ll be in town this weekend instead of enjoying 10-18” up in VT) and see everyone out of their minds and eating their young. Get it together, folks. It will snow again this year. 

[CAPE]

Just now, das said:

Mani I come in here to commiserate our lost digital snow for Saturday night (since I’ll be in town this weekend instead of enjoying 10-18” up in VT) and see everyone out of their minds and eating their young. Get it together, folks. It will snow again this year. 

Yes. Decent chance we see some snow in December.

[Baltimorewx]

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

Yes. Decent chance we see some snow in December.

I’ll say October for the N&W folks 

[winterymix]

12 minutes ago, das said:

This makes me sad. Having watched your posts over the last 15+ years, I’m surprised by this reasoning and hope it’s just a by-product of the acutely bad period in the middle of a crap winter. 

Kudos to the LWX crew.  The rain forecasts have generally be excellent.

[Inverted_Trough]

2 hours ago, WEATHER53 said:

Yes we know you have appointed yourself the Big Dog here with every 8 paragraph post. Over the last almost 20 years we’ve had a number claim stake for a few years 

Models are a fraud. They waste taxpayers money trying to solve a riddle they cant

No money should be spend on anything past 3 days maybe 5. The reason-models can’t do it. Maybe 10% of the time they stick with a hit and it happens. Otherwise it’s show all sorts of outcomes  in the 5-15 day and at 4 per days that’s 20-60 outcomes. Guess what, one will be right so present that to Feds as your success come Federsl funding renewal time.

My enjoyment comes from making observations doing the event and following things from 3 days in. I derive no satisfaction from endlessly changing example of possible weather, I want to forecast as to most probable outcome. Models can’t do that and have not tightened things up in last 20 years do let’s tryanother route.

Model verification scores have demonstrably gotten better over the last several decades.  Can you show me some data that shows those verification scores have flat-lined over the last 20 years?  The data I've seen shows those scores steadily getting better as time goes on.  What would the other route be?  The Farmers Almanac?

If you're looking at 384 hr verification scores, then yes, I'm sure those haven't gotten better.  Frankly I don't know why the discrete models go beyond 240.  The ensembles are useful beyond 240 but the discrete models are useless at that range.  But inside of 144 hrs, they're pretty good.  Inside of 72 hrs, they're remarkably accurate - which wasn't the case 20 years ago.

[Ji]

Howard has gone from professional forecaster to professional troll. A very smooth transition!

[Ji]

You pass through a time machine?
And that storm failed btw

Lol nice catch. It was in my Facebook memories

[Maestrobjwa]

1 hour ago, Inverted_Trough said:

Model verification scores have demonstrably gotten better over the last several decades.  Can you show me some data that shows those verification scores have flat-lined over the last 20 years?  The data I've seen shows those scores steadily getting better as time goes on.  What would the other route be?  The Farmers Almanac?

If you're looking at 384 hr verification scores, then yes, I'm sure those haven't gotten better.  Frankly I don't know why the discrete models go beyond 240.  The ensembles are useful beyond 240 but the discrete models are useless at that range.  But inside of 144 hrs, they're pretty good.  Inside of 72 hrs, they're remarkably accurate - which wasn't the case 20 years ago.

Otherwise known as 2000 hr model runs...lol

[Solution Man]

Just now, losetoa6 said:

Well..if your looking for a glimmer of hope for Saturday the 18z Eps was a bit stronger with our sw and latest Nam ( yes..the nam) also stronger . Separation from the departing system still unchanged but its something. 

Glimmer, maybe a few flakes

[cbmclean]

Something is puzzling me about how extreme +AO evens.  Earlier today frd shared a post from Don S. about 500 HP/temp anomalies of extreme +AO events.  The pic below is taken from Don S.'s post.

 

 

So as they teach us in beginner weenie school +AO means PV/polar jet is stronger than normal so tends to keep low heights bottled and cold air bottled up in the high latitudes, with warm air in the middle latitutes.  And you can see that to be the case in Don S.' plots, a ring of ridging/warmth in the midlatitudes: the eastern CONUS, Europe, China.  BUT there for some reason there is a big trough/cold anomaly in teh western CONUS.  Anyone have any idea what that is all about?

 

[Inverted_Trough]

38 minutes ago, cbmclean said:

Something is puzzling me about how extreme +AO evens.  Earlier today frd shared a post from Don S. about 500 HP/temp anomalies of extreme +AO events.  The pic below is taken from Don S.'s post.

 

 

So as they teach us in beginner weenie school +AO means PV/polar jet is stronger than normal so tends to keep low heights bottled and cold air bottled up in the high latitudes, with warm air in the middle latitutes.  And you can see that to be the case in Don S.' plots, a ring of ridging/warmth in the midlatitudes: the eastern CONUS, Europe, China.  BUT there for some reason there is a big trough/cold anomaly in teh western CONUS.  Anyone have any idea what that is all about?

 

From this I infer that a +AO must have some correlation with a -PNA

[Ji]

Something is puzzling me about how extreme +AO evens.  Earlier today frd shared a post from Don S. about 500 HP/temp anomalies of extreme +AO events.  The pic below is taken from Don S.'s post.  

 

So as they teach us in beginner weenie school +AO means PV/polar jet is stronger than normal so tends to keep low heights bottled and cold air bottled up in the high latitudes, with warm air in the middle latitutes.  And you can see that to be the case in Don S.' plots, a ring of ridging/warmth in the midlatitudes: the eastern CONUS, Europe, China.  BUT there for some reason there is a big trough/cold anomaly in teh western CONUS.  Anyone have any idea what that is all about?

 

 

There cant be a ridge everywhere and there cant be cold air everywhere so if there is a ridge in east the trough is in west .AO and nao seem to hurt us more in the east than in the west. In fact if I lived in west I'd probably cheer against a negative ao and nao  

 

 

[Ji]

God forbid there be any moisture when we have a high in the right place

[showmethesnow]

5 hours ago, cbmclean said:

Something is puzzling me about how extreme +AO evens.  Earlier today frd shared a post from Don S. about 500 HP/temp anomalies of extreme +AO events.  The pic below is taken from Don S.'s post.

 

 

So as they teach us in beginner weenie school +AO means PV/polar jet is stronger than normal so tends to keep low heights bottled and cold air bottled up in the high latitudes, with warm air in the middle latitutes.  And you can see that to be the case in Don S.' plots, a ring of ridging/warmth in the midlatitudes: the eastern CONUS, Europe, China.  BUT there for some reason there is a big trough/cold anomaly in teh western CONUS.  Anyone have any idea what that is all about?

 

 

The simple answer to your question is, Air Flow.

The PV tends to gravitate towards the pole as that is where its natural state is. The stronger the pv the stronger the attraction. But there are other forces in play as well that fight against this, trying to redistribute heat to balance out the extreme contrasts in temps from the arctic/ polar regions and the mid-latitudes. So what we normally see is a constant tug of war with the pv so that it quite often is displaced off the pole. Now where that pv is displaced to in relation to the pole is where your question comes into play.

 

Below we have a map of the 500's. Now I want you to consider that black circle around the pole as a factory that produces ice. Now what this map shows is height lines. But I want you to consider it a fairly accurate read of what the air flow will be. So think of the air flow to and from that region as delivery services of ice to other locations as well as delivery of warm water to that ice box for future refreezing. You can see that delivers of ice are being made into the SW US as well southern and eastern Canada. We also see deliveries being made into eastern Russia around a weaker secondary pv. On the flip side we see warm water for freezing be shipped up through Alaska as well on the other side of the globe from eastern Europe and Russia. Now compare the second map to the first. Pretty spot on.

So basically what it all comes down to is, where the pv is in relation to the pole and thus where the inflow and outflow from the polar/arctic region sets up.

 

 

[showmethesnow]

I swear this PV is like a punch drunk boxer. Been taking a beating all winter.

 

And yet it get's up, staggers around for a bit and then is back, ready for the fight.

 

Here's hoping that this might be an Ali upper cut being telegraphed to take its ass out.

 

You know it is starting to get desperate when I start throwing out pv maps hoping for a miracle. 

[psuhoffman]

33 minutes ago, showmethesnow said:

I swear this PV is like a punch drunk boxer. Been taking a beating all winter.

 

And yet it get's up, staggers around for a bit and then is back, ready for the fight.

 

Here's hoping that this might be an Ali upper cut being telegraphed to take its ass out.

 

You know it is starting to get desperate when I start throwing out pv maps hoping for a miracle. 

Sometimes the strat stuff is overblown because the spv isn’t always coupled well with the tpv. And if the pv isn’t that strong then bottom up wave disruption can be good enough. But this year the spv and tpv have been as couples as I’ve ever seen and both are record strong, so it does matter. 

[Ralph Wiggum]

The boundary is finally to our South. One thing missing tho:

 

[CAPE]

Cold air pressing.. a wave tracking underneath. Maybe our hail Mary period.. 

[Maestrobjwa]

9 minutes ago, Ralph Wiggum said:

The boundary is finally to our South. One thing missing tho:

 

While my first reaction to that was a primal scream, I do wonder if the cold would be enough to setup an overrunning event or something...But, let's just see if that general look stays there or not.

[snowmagnet]

Did the overnight EPS hold our glimmer of hope around Feb 20th? 

[dallen7908]

7 minutes ago, snowmagnet said:

Did the overnight EPS hold our glimmer of hope around Feb 20th? 

5 to the 51 members give DC  an appreciable snow event (>2-3") between the 18th and 21st.