February to Forget Volume 2 - 2020

[RUNNAWAYICEBERG]

Just now, CoastalWx said:

Who said going poof? From 5SD to 1SD is a huge change. 

This is where he is losing the point. Stuck in the +++AO mud and can’t find his way out. 

[CapturedNature]

59 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

I know..keep thinking that too....but it looks to be a change from what we had. Of course everyone measures this by what their backyard shows, but the idea is that the big pieces change. Hopefully the surface aspect of it will too. 

yeah, it does look like that.  I'd like some snow but I'll also take seasonable temps for my maple season.  Taps are all in and ready for runs!

38 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

That’s what most folks are thinking.Head fake, pump fake,any buyers left with just shins below the knees.For most .. the hope is there, but the money stays in pockets

I'll buy it when it's here.

[NorEastermass128]

Hey...it’s snowing out. 

[MJO812]

Eps likes a colder pattern after day 9

[weatherwiz]

1 minute ago, CoastalWx said:

Who said going poof? From 5SD to 1SD is a huge change. 

Again...everyone is completely relying on a model output saying it's going to drop to +1 but there is hardcore evidence or indications that actually happens? 

[CoastalWx]

1 minute ago, weatherwiz said:

Again...everyone is completely relying on a model output saying it's going to drop to +1 but there is hardcore evidence or indications that actually happens? 

You think it will stay 3-5SD? Just because the stratospheric vortex is alive and well doesn't mean the tropospheric version of it can't change. That happens all the time. Looks like a lock to me it weakens. The question is always....what will it mean for our backyard? May not mean anything, or it could mean snow. 

[HoarfrostHubb]

3 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

Again...everyone is completely relying on a model output saying it's going to drop to +1 but there is hardcore evidence or indications that actually happens? 

A time traveler from May 1 visited me and told me the change happened.  He also said the severe outlook was poor

[weatherwiz]

3 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

You think it will stay 3-5SD? Just because the stratospheric vortex is alive and well doesn't mean the tropospheric version of it can't change. That happens all the time. Looks like a lock to me it weakens. The question is always....what will it mean for our backyard? May not mean anything, or it could mean snow. 

I'm not saying it stays 3-5SD but I think it stays strong enough to where it continues to influence and dominate the pattern. I completely agree the tropospheric PV can certainly change and isn't totally tied into the SPV but aren't the two strongly coupled currently? Something would have to disrupt that, no? I would think we want to start seeing the TPV and SPV decouple 

What I see happening is (which is yielding the TPV to weaken) is ridging develops just northeast of AK and this extends into the Arctic domain which would result in the weakening of the AO...but this is something we've seen modeled quite a bit over the past few weeks and that scenario just doesn't seem to materialize. 

One of the bigger changes looks to be more with AK and extending ridging more into AK...that could be a huge driver.

3 minutes ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

A time traveler from May 1 visited me and told me the change happened.  He also said the severe outlook was poor

 

[Damage In Tolland]

35 minutes ago, MetHerb said:

yeah, it does look like that.  I'd like some snow but I'll also take seasonable temps for my maple season.  Taps are all in and ready for runs!

I'll buy it when it's here.

Exactly 

[Typhoon Tip]

59 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

what would be the catalyst behind the change? This is something which I was trying to get at with my evening rants last night. 

I don't think it's in the best interest to assume a pattern change is going to occur (and in this cases big changes to the AO) just b/c "it is modeled". How many times have we seen models indicate a pattern change beyond a certain time frame only for it to continue being delayed...and delayed? For it to have merit there has to be a catalyst. 

So in this situation, if we're looking at a big pattern change to occur in say 7-10 days or 10-14 days...I would think whatever the catalyst is to drive that changes should be sen in real-time within the next 3-4 days. 

What is going to allow a relaxation of the AO? I was reading some stuff last night and apparently the AO is forecast to remain completely in tact and very strong moving into March. Unless there is something to disrupt those historic westerlies I can't see this AO just going poof. 

All ensemble EOF methods from multiple guidance agencies depicting a 4 to 5 SD dump of the AO...  

that's a A

B,  ...season ending blocking has some precedence in climatology. It doesn't have to be major, either...just timed well with other factors. Then together can create a kind of 'synergistic' feed-back ..i.e., constructive interference, and then that climate signal expresses more if so.  Think, two small 2-order waves super-impose and the end wave is 5 ...not just 4.  Something like that as a metaphor

C, the pattern persisted +AO and the typical mortality on pattern is 45 ... maybe 60 days, and we near the 60 day...so, there is some typology that lends to the notion that the AO/PV really is/are slated to deconstruct a bit.  Typically when that happens, you also get a blocking node response ...because when the seam takes place, there is a transient latent heat surplus toward the Farrel Cell. 

You basically have three factors there that are super-imposing over the next three weeks.  It doesn't mean cryo-apocalypse either... Just that instead of sloping the interference tendencies toward failure, we have a chance to pass through a season ending success bias.   

Which is far in a way an improvement over the last 60 days, don't you think?  Or, we can just knee jerk doubt and sans objectivity because we either hate winter and just want tropopause fisting CBs, or... are too disillusion-addled inconsolable pieces of shit.   Kidding a little there of course.. 

[dendrite]

22 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

Again...everyone is completely relying on a model output saying it's going to drop to +1 but there is hardcore evidence or indications that actually happens? 

Nothing can stay at 6SD for very long. Otherwise it’s time to recalculate the deviations. I mean, what’s the probability of a z-score of 6? 

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

I agree, understand the notion to ‘see more’. Previous modeled patterns were detrimental to the weenie psyche and therefore some have completely abandoned the winter vessel but...overwhelming evidence supports it’s still in tact. Whether one wants to jump back aboard is to their own emotional comforts. 

I’ll take the weather as it comes.

I try    ... actually I'm pretty good at changing on dime these days. I wasn't like that when I was kid...oh, through my 20s. I needed winter to inspire fear, and summer heat to bend rail-road tracks ... tors and canes and earthquakes, dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria.  

As I turned middle age, I'm really into curiosity more than anything else, and can find that in lesser drams just as well.   If we are getting igloo'ed into our homes by some historic thing in early February, I'd actually be amazed if we put up a 80 F ten days later over mud, because that is interesting on whole to me. It's definitely a much healthier and ...'sciency' perspective, don't you think? 

I also admit to having at least some intro-seasonal preference to some degree, sure. I'm going to sit here and claim that no winter is fine - that's boring. Boring is hard to get over in any dimension.  Simply put, if this thing fails and we end up March 2012'vy yet warmer, I'd have forgotten about it inside of a short days.  That's all.  From now through about March 21 I'm pretty much in my hypocrisy period of the year. 

[weatherwiz]

1 minute ago, Typhoon Tip said:

All ensemble EOF methods from multiple guidance agencies depicting a 4 to 5 SD dump of the AO...  

that's a A

B,  ...season ending blocking has some precedence in climatology. It doesn't have to be major, either...just time well with other factors and can create a kind of 'synergistic' feed-back ..i.e., constructive interference, and then that climate signal expresses more if so.  Think, two small 2-order waves super-impose and the end wave is 5 ...not just 4.  Something like that as a metaphor

C, the pattern persisted +AO and the typical mortality on pattern is 45 ... maybe 60 days, and we near the 60 day...so, there is some typology that lends to the notion that the AO/PV really is/are slated to deconstruct a bit.  Typically when that happens, you also get a blocking node response ...because when the seam takes place, there is a transient latent heat surplus toward the Farrel Cell. 

You basically have three factors there that are super-imposing over the next three weeks.  It doesn't mean cryo-apocalypse either... Just that instead of sloping the interference tendencies toward failure, we have a chance to pass through a season ending success bias.   

Which is far in a way an improvement over the last 60 days, don't you think?  Or, we can just knee jerk doubt and sans objectivity because we either hate winter and just want tropopause fisting CBs, or... are too disillusion-addled inconsolable pieces of shit.   Kidding a little there of course.. 

A) oh come on...that's too easy  but my point to that is when we see these changes modeled in the medium-to-long range...shouldn't signals which are leading to those changes be witnessed with initialization of models say at D4 or 5 (or some day). 

B ) makes sense

C) This is all extremely informative information! But given the historic nature of the AO would the 45/60 day pattern be applicable here? 

 

[weatherwiz]

3 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Nothing can stay at 6SD for very long. Otherwise it’s time to recalculate the deviations. I mean, what’s the probability of a z-score of 6? 

I don't think it really holds to be that strong...but I think it stays on the stronger side. whether that's +1 (sure much different than now...but that's still strong) or +3 I couldn't say. Even in this regime though we've had cold shots and I would expect us to see some more...but will they be long-lived? Probably not...that will just make it all the more difficult to get something to work out in our favor. I'm thinking after the cold blast towards months end (should it verify) we flip towards warm and stay there until mid-May when backdoors decide to haunt us

[ORH_wxman]

Wiz gone wild. 

At some point you can’t just ignore model guidance in the skilled timeframes just because you got burned previously. 

This big change in the arctic is taking place inside of 8 or 9 days. It’s not like it’s a 360 hour pipe dream. 

Again, doesn’t have to mean we forecast big cold and snow. But it’s quite a bit less hostile to storms in the east than the current regime. 

[Typhoon Tip]

12 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

A) oh come on...that's too easy  but my point to that is when we see these changes modeled in the medium-to-long range...shouldn't signals which are leading to those changes be witnessed with initialization of models say at D4 or 5 (or some day). 

B ) makes sense

C) This is all extremely informative information! But given the historic nature of the AO would the 45/60 day pattern be applicable here? 

 

Not sure I follow you here... 

what's 'too easy'  -

And no, not necessarily - forgive me if I'm wrong, but it "sounds" as though you are failing to allow 'emergence' in the modeling.  And by that, I don't mean the fractal variety; I mean, the physics of the system now, processed through equations of motions, and thermodynamics over time...  emerge those states  of indexes out in time.

That's a seamless process - it may seem like it has temporal boundaries at times, but actually...it's a fluid.  So you are not going to necessarily see shit on D 2'd  rmf up diamonds on D 8's  ... It may take until D 5, 6 or 7 for the turds to start gemming - 

 

[Typhoon Tip]

I don't know... it's not an overwhelming signal, either.   Wiz' or other idea detractors should stick with that  imho. 

But the NAO is trying to slip downward, as is the EPO ...in the American agencies. I'm not sure about the EPS, but other's have posted material that suggest so.  It is possible that the AO is is merely being 'pulled' down in index value because these subordinate field regions that over lap its domain happen to modulate down.  

But it doesn't matter if the AO is perfect -3 anyway.  The fact that it is shaving a lot of SD while the EPO/NAO arc may be neutral-neggie by week 2, ...that is still a better probability domain for winter enthusiasts in mid February model outlooks. 

[weatherwiz]

12 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Wiz gone wild. 

At some point you can’t just ignore model guidance in the skilled timeframes just because you got burned previously. 

This big change in the arctic is taking place inside of 8 or 9 days. It’s not like it’s a 360 hour pipe dream. 

Again, doesn’t have to mean we forecast big cold and snow. But it’s quite a bit less hostile to storms in the east than the current regime. 

 

10 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Not sure I follow you here... 

what's 'too easy'  -

And no, not necessarily - forgive me if I'm wrong, but it "sounds" as though you are failing to allow 'emergence' in the modeling.  And by that, I don't mean the fractal variety; I mean, the physics of the system now, processed through equations of motions, and thermodynamics over time...  emerge those states  of indexes out in time.

That's a seamless process - it may seem like it has temporal boundaries at times, but actually...it's a fluid.  So you are not going to necessarily see shit on D 2'd  rmf up diamonds on D 8's  ... It may take until D 5, 6 or 7 for the turds to start gemming - 

 

It's not necessarily just ignoring it...it's just trying to dive deeper into it and exploring and seeking answers into "why the change is happening" instead of just assuming so b/c it's being reflected on the charts (this also answers to Tip about what I mean by too easy).

Looking at the charts...while a drop is obviously the trend...there is significant uncertainty regarding this towards the end of the month. For the past month, each drop in the AO has become less impressive than the previous drop...now I'm not using that as my case to claim that continues...what I'm suggesting from that is it's in part due to just how strong and how coupled the PV's are

now...analyzing how H5 evolves on the GFS/euro/ensembles you can clearly see why the drop is being modeled...but what I'm also getting at is those changes which lead to weakening of the AO would start to be shown in about 3-4 days...so if that configuration isn't evolving as so by that time...can we really expect a major drop in the AO?

One other major wild card is what's occurring in the GoA right now with that significant storm...following forecasts in the anchorage area the forecasts have been extremely uncertain and low confidence. Seems like the system is much stronger than sort of though. This may influence the shape of the height fields up that way over the next few days which would have some say in what happens after that. 

[RUNNAWAYICEBERG]

47 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Exactly 

You have lost your ways. You need a big humid summer to recharge the weenie. 

[MJO812]

35 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

 

It's not necessarily just ignoring it...it's just trying to dive deeper into it and exploring and seeking answers into "why the change is happening" instead of just assuming so b/c it's being reflected on the charts (this also answers to Tip about what I mean by too easy).

Looking at the charts...while a drop is obviously the trend...there is significant uncertainty regarding this towards the end of the month. For the past month, each drop in the AO has become less impressive than the previous drop...now I'm not using that as my case to claim that continues...what I'm suggesting from that is it's in part due to just how strong and how coupled the PV's are

now...analyzing how H5 evolves on the GFS/euro/ensembles you can clearly see why the drop is being modeled...but what I'm also getting at is those changes which lead to weakening of the AO would start to be shown in about 3-4 days...so if that configuration isn't evolving as so by that time...can we really expect a major drop in the AO?

One other major wild card is what's occurring in the GoA right now with that significant storm...following forecasts in the anchorage area the forecasts have been extremely uncertain and low confidence. Seems like the system is much stronger than sort of though. This may influence the shape of the height fields up that way over the next few days which would have some say in what happens after that. 

Ao  this morning is awful moving forward

[CoastalWx]

You need to look at more than the text values. Look at the 500 H anomalies too. You can't just make a call based on text values and graphs. 

[MJO812]

Gfs is pretty cold during the end of the month

[Allsnow]

@CoastalWx @ORH_wxman i find it surprising the PD storm of 2003 is still the biggest in Boston. Has this ever been challenged by other storms? (Been so many in recent years) And is that 27.6 legit compared to surrounding areas.

[HIPPYVALLEY]

2 minutes ago, Allsnow said:

@CoastalWx @ORH_wxman i find it surprising the PD storm of 2003 is still the biggest in Boston. Has this ever been challenged by other storms? (Been so many in recent years) And is that 27.6 legit compared to surrounding areas.

I was in Cambridge and did not get close to that.

[CoastalWx]

2 minutes ago, Allsnow said:

@CoastalWx @ORH_wxman i find it surprising the PD storm of 2003 is still the biggest in Boston. Has this ever been challenged by other storms? (Been so many in recent years) And is that 27.6 legit compared to surrounding areas.

Well PDII was a 6 hr measurement. I have heard from those in E BOS that they felt it was close to that amount. But the blizz of 78 probably would be higher if they had the same measurement technique. Also, it's possible the blizz of 2005 could have been close to that, but they measured on a freaking cat walk for that, I was told. LOL. As usual, snow measuring has a high bar of error...and many do not know what they are doing. 

[tamarack]

1 hour ago, CoastalWx said:

Well PDII was a 6 hr measurement. I have heard from those in E BOS that they felt it was close to that amount. But the blizz of 78 probably would be higher if they had the same measurement technique. Also, it's possible the blizz of 2005 could have been close to that, but they measured on a freaking cat walk for that, I was told. LOL. As usual, snow measuring has a high bar of error...and many do not know what they are doing. 

And that bar gets higher as winds get stronger.  Did PDII have winds anywhere near the strength of '05 and especially ''78?  Also, how was measuring done in 1969?  That event only trails '03 by 1.3".

[ORH_wxman]

8 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Well PDII was a 6 hr measurement. I have heard from those in E BOS that they felt it was close to that amount. But the blizz of 78 probably would be higher if they had the same measurement technique. Also, it's possible the blizz of 2005 could have been close to that, but they measured on a freaking cat walk for that, I was told. LOL. As usual, snow measuring has a high bar of error...and many do not know what they are doing. 

I thought they measured too often in PDII. It should have been nixed. Their max depth was like 21” right? And they had a 3” depth prior to the storm. 

[Allsnow]

11 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Well PDII was a 6 hr measurement. I have heard from those in E BOS that they felt it was close to that amount. But the blizz of 78 probably would be higher if they had the same measurement technique. Also, it's possible the blizz of 2005 could have been close to that, but they measured on a freaking cat walk for that, I was told. LOL. As usual, snow measuring has a high bar of error...and many do not know what they are doing. 

 

1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said:

I thought they measured too often in PDII. It should have been nixed. Their max depth was like 21” right? And they had a 3” depth prior to the storm. 

Interesting. We have had issues with snow measuring in our bigger events at NYC. Most recent example would be 2016. 
 

I just was surprised that storm in 2003 was still number one in Boston. Over the past decade we really have raised the bar with these costal snowstorms. 

[tamarack]

11 minutes ago, Allsnow said:

 

Interesting. We have had issues with snow measuring in our bigger events at NYC. Most recent example would be 2016. 
 

I just was surprised that storm in 2003 was still number one in Boston. Over the past decade we really have raised the bar with these costal snowstorms. 

At least NYC's depth got up to 22" in 2016.  The record breaker (now #2) in Feb. 2006 never brought depth past 16".  IMO, given equivalent measurement skill, NYC's greatest snowfall was either Dec. 1947, 25.8" (now #3) which added 24" to a 1" cover, or 1888, in which depth was even more guesswork than usual.

[DavisStraight]

Measuring in 78 must have been difficult with all the blowing and drifting. 78 had more of an impact.