Winter 2021-2022

[Great Snow 1717]

53 minutes ago, SnoSki14 said:

Let's cancel winter now then and enjoy the warm weather & lower heating costs.

by 12/10 that may be the theme......

[George001]

1 hour ago, SnowEMass said:

I feel like if this were a “real” La Niña, we’d have had one solid snow threat by now. But nothing coming up in the near future.  Maybe this one will behave itself.  

It’s weakening a little earlier than anticipated but make no mistake, this is a real La Niña that is well coupled with the atmosphere. The MEI value is at -1.5, that doesn’t happen in a La Niña that isn’t well coupled to the atmosphere. There has also been significant cooling over the past couple months off the northern pacific coast, another indicator that La Niña is already driving the atmospheric pattern.
 

Strength wise, it is expected to be a low end moderate La Niña, maybe a tad weaker strength wise than last year (last year was -1.3, this year probably -1.1 or so peak). However, this La Niña despite being weaker is more well coupled to the atmosphere, the MEI is higher, the northern pacfic ssts are cooler ect. La Niña isn’t going to fade into the background while other factors drive our winter pattern, La Niña will likely be a major pattern driver, even more so than last year despite being a tad weaker. 

 

[ORH_wxman]

2 minutes ago, George001 said:

It’s weakening a little earlier than anticipated but make no mistake, this is a real La Niña that is well coupled with the atmosphere. The MEI value is at -1.5, that doesn’t happen in a La Niña that isn’t well coupled to the atmosphere. There has also been significant cooling over the past couple months off the northern pacific coast, another indicator that La Niña is already driving the atmospheric pattern.
 

Strength wise, it is expected to be a low end moderate La Niña, maybe a tad weaker strength wise than last year (last year was -1.3, this year probably -1.1 or so peak). However, this La Niña despite being weaker is more well coupled to the atmosphere, the MEI is higher, the northern pacfic ssts are cooler ect. La Niña isn’t going to fade into the background while other factors drive our winter pattern, La Niña will likely be a major pattern driver, even more so than last year despite being a tad weaker. 

 

This looks more like a La Nina than any of the other previous ones we've had since 2011.

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

6 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

This looks more like a La Nina than any of the other previous ones we've had since 2011.

 

Living near the NH border, I am glad to see that. Last year got old fast.

[40/70 Benchmark]

7 minutes ago, George001 said:

It’s weakening a little earlier than anticipated but make no mistake, this is a real La Niña that is well coupled with the atmosphere. The MEI value is at -1.5, that doesn’t happen in a La Niña that isn’t well coupled to the atmosphere. There has also been significant cooling over the past couple months off the northern pacific coast, another indicator that La Niña is already driving the atmospheric pattern.
 

Strength wise, it is expected to be a low end moderate La Niña, maybe a tad weaker strength wise than last year (last year was -1.3, this year probably -1.1 or so peak). However, this La Niña despite being weaker is more well coupled to the atmosphere, the MEI is higher, the northern pacfic ssts are cooler ect. La Niña isn’t going to fade into the background while other factors drive our winter pattern, La Niña will likely be a major pattern driver, even more so than last year despite being a tad weaker. 

 

This actually one of your better posts.

[Chrisrotary12]

I applaud you all who put in the time to develop a seasonal forecast. I'm of the opinion that we struggle to get day 5 right most of the time, so why try for day 55.

[40/70 Benchmark]

24 minutes ago, Chrisrotary12 said:

I applaud you all who put in the time to develop a seasonal forecast. I'm of the opinion that we struggle to get day 5 right most of the time, so why try for day 55.

Yea, advancing science is a truly fruitless endeavor. Why try to cure cancer? We can't even cure covid.

[Chrisrotary12]

1 hour ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yea, advancing science is a truly fruitless endeavor. Why try to cure cancer? We can't even cure covid.

Thank you for your thoughts. Good luck with your outlook.

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 hour ago, Chrisrotary12 said:

Thank you for your thoughts. Good luck with your outlook.

I know what you mean, though...just being an ass.

[Chrisrotary12]

22 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I know what you mean, though...just being an ass.

My other comment is that I'm at such a busy point in my career/life that I don't have the energy to worry about what the weeklies show for week 4. Not enough space in head to worry about such things. Like Drago in Rocky 4: "If it snows, it snows. If it's overcast and 42. it's 42."

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 hours ago, Chrisrotary12 said:

My other comment is that I'm at such a busy point in my career/life that I don't have the energy to worry about what the weeklies show for week 4. Not enough space in head to worry about such things. Like Drago in Rocky 4: "If it snows, it snows. If it's overcast and 42. it's 42."

Its def time consuming...no argument there. You don't want to know how much time I spend on that. lol I think its a worthwhile endeavor for those who do decide to commit to it, though....one day seasonal forecasts will be decent.

[KEITH L.I]

21 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Its def time consuming...no argument there. You don't want to know how much time I spend on that. lol I think its a worthwhile endeavor for those who to decide to commit to it, though....one day seasonal forecasts will be decent.

Take one day at a time as we did in the 60's and 70's. In the 60's you would get a two day forecast. In the 70's 3 days. There was no computer models, you didn't know if it would be warmer or colder in a week. Not knowing is great. Weather just happened when you got up, and you dealt with it

[OSUmetstud]

6 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

This looks more like a La Nina than any of the other previous ones we've had since 2011.

 

The pdo is the lowest since 1955 lol. Very chilly pac overall. 

[ORH_wxman]

1 hour ago, KEITH L.I said:

Take one day at a time as we did in the 60's and 70's. In the 60's you would get a two day forecast. In the 70's 3 days. There was no computer models, you didn't know if it would be warmer or colder in a week. Not knowing is great. Weather just happened when you got up, and you dealt with it

There were computer models but they weren’t very good. There was the GSM (global spectral model) and then in the 1970s they added the LFM (precursor to the NGM/ETA) 

[KEITH L.I]

2 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

There were computer models but they weren’t very good. There was the GSM (global spectral model) and then in the 1970s they added the LFM (precursor to the NGM/ETA) 

What did they go out to?..48 hours?

[DavisStraight]

2 hours ago, KEITH L.I said:

Take one day at a time as we did in the 60's and 70's. In the 60's you would get a two day forecast. In the 70's 3 days. There was no computer models, you didn't know if it would be warmer or colder in a week. Not knowing is great. Weather just happened when you got up, and you dealt with it

Used to like the day when the mets at 11 would predict light snows 1-3 inches and we'd end up with 18 inches. Those days are over I think but when I was a kid I always went to bed hoping they were wrong.

[ORH_wxman]

51 minutes ago, KEITH L.I said:

What did they go out to?..48 hours?

I think the GSM went out to 4 or 5 says but the LFM was 48 hours. Or maybe 60. Not sure. 

[Typhoon Tip]

I have my doubts the atmosphere will be coupled. 
 

leave it that -

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I have my doubts the atmosphere will be coupled. 
 

leave it that -

Yea, if we have any kind of SSW, it will be much later in the season. 

[DavisStraight]

3 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

I think the GSM went out to 4 or 5 says but the LFM was 48 hours. Or maybe 60. Not sure. 

I was only 16 but I swear all the mets on the major networks before the blizzard of 78 said it was a huge storm but was just going to graze us, the next morning was different but I remember going to bed disappointed.

[ORH_wxman]

29 minutes ago, DavisStraight said:

I was only 16 but I swear all the mets on the major networks before the blizzard of 78 said it was a huge storm but was just going to graze us, the next morning was different but I remember going to bed disappointed.

Yeah except Harvey was sounding the alarms a bit. That’s the storm he kind of made his name known. I think it was his first winter too on the air in Boston.  Nobody thought it would be a 2-4 foot monster, but Harvey was skeptical of the graze job. He said something like “this could be a major storm”. 

Ironically, the models had the Cleveland superbomb 10 days earlier as a big nor’ Easter snowstorm but really screwed the pooch. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

33 minutes ago, DavisStraight said:

I was only 16 but I swear all the mets on the major networks before the blizzard of 78 said it was a huge storm but was just going to graze us, the next morning was different but I remember going to bed disappointed.

They seemed to have an east bias that season because they thought the OV bomb was going to be another SNE blizzard.

[Ginx snewx]

16 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah except Harvey was sounding the alarms a bit. That’s the storm he kind of made his name known. I think it was his first winter too on the air in Boston.  Nobody thought it would be a 2-4 foot monster, but Harvey was skeptical of the graze job. He said something like “this could be a major storm”. 

Ironically, the models had the Cleveland superbomb 10 days earlier as a big nor’ Easter snowstorm but really screwed the pooch. 

The Jan 21st blizzard was forecast as rain and a graze best positive 2 foot bust of my life. Feb 78 was well forecasted. I was in Met class at URI then and my professor was all over it.

[Typhoon Tip]

52 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah except Harvey was sounding the alarms a bit. That’s the storm he kind of made his name known. I think it was his first winter too on the air in Boston.  Nobody thought it would be a 2-4 foot monster, but Harvey was skeptical of the graze job. He said something like “this could be a major storm”. 

Ironically, the models had the Cleveland superbomb 10 days earlier as a big nor’ Easter snowstorm but really screwed the pooch. 

It would be cool to see those model runs. … I wonder if they’re out there somewhere, some long vacated dusty office in a file cabinet under fluorescent rail lights that haven’t buzzed to life in 32 years. 

- seems there was similar error on both to biases too far E, but verified west

[raindancewx]

It's interesting how the train of storms dumping into the West in January 2021 preceded the severe cold in February 2022 in the Plains, and then this year, we had the train of storms into the West ("atmospheric river" hype) and now it's a pretty cold start - at least - to November.

Off the top of my head, the cold SE half of the US v. warm NW half of the US looks for 11/1-11/10 are something like ~12 years at most since 1950. It's not super common in that time frame. Opposites are rare too.

1953, 1954, 1955, 1958, 1962, 1997, 2006, 2014

1967, 1976, 2007, 2010 arguably too.

2003 is a near perfect opposite. 

Anti 2003-04 (x2), plus 1954-55 (x2), 1955-56 (x2), 1962-63 (x2), 1967-68, 2007-08, 2010-11 is fairly similar to what I forecast in October. It's my typical scale, white is -1 to +1 in F, then each new color is a 2 degree Fahrenheit range against long-term average. The -PDO is correlated to cold in SW Canada, and the -WPO is correlated to cold in SE Canada for winter, but there is overlap where both favor cold in South-Central Canada. So it's interesting to see that show up below.

Edit: Whoops, forgot 2010-11.

[Tatamy]

9 hours ago, DavisStraight said:

I was only 16 but I swear all the mets on the major networks before the blizzard of 78 said it was a huge storm but was just going to graze us, the next morning was different but I remember going to bed disappointed.

I was the same age but was in the NYC area during the run up to this event.  My source of information was the Accuweather Mets on WINS.  They spoke of a strong LP system that would be diving out of Alberta and would serve to generate an intense storm along the mid Atlantic coast.  This discussion started on the Friday and Saturday before the event (Monday).  This scenario was what was being generated on the models of that time.  There seemed to be little doubt in their minds.  The Mets I am referring to are Dr. Joel Myers, Dr. Joel Sobel, and Elliott Abrams.  The only other event that I can recall that was forecasted that far in advance with that level of certainty was the Superstorm of 1993.

[Ginx snewx]

9 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

It would be cool to see those model runs. … I wonder if they’re out there somewhere, some long vacated dusty office in a file cabinet under fluorescent rail lights that haven’t buzzed to life in 32 years. 

- seems there was similar error on both to biases too far E, but verified west

 

[ORH_wxman]

1 hour ago, Ginx snewx said:

 

There’s actually an old write-up somewhere I have to find about the LFM in that storm. It performed very well but most Mets didn’t really buy it. The GSM was more southeast and the LFM had really screwed the pooch in the Cleveland superbomb 10 days earlier. The 2/5/78 run was also a huge shift from the previous day.

Most of the TV Mets (aside from harvey who was more bullish) were forecasting accumulating snow but not the extreme rates and fast start that occurred. The “wall” of heavy snow that came in around mid-morning Monday was the killer. Most forecasts were for a gradual increase in snow. 

[Ginx snewx]

30 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

There’s actually an old write-up somewhere I have to find about the LFM in that storm. It performed very well but most Mets didn’t really buy it. The GSM was more southeast and the LFM had really screwed the pooch in the Cleveland superbomb 10 days earlier. The 2/5/78 run was also a huge shift from the previous day.

Most of the TV Mets (aside from harvey who was more bullish) were forecasting accumulating snow but not the extreme rates and fast start that occurred. The “wall” of heavy snow that came in around mid-morning Monday was the killer. Most forecasts were for a gradual increase in snow. 

I have a Bob Copeland post from old Ne.weather. He and Mark were on it

[tamarack]

16 hours ago, DavisStraight said:

Used to like the day when the mets at 11 would predict light snows 1-3 inches and we'd end up with 18 inches. Those days are over I think but when I was a kid I always went to bed hoping they were wrong.

Had almost that exact scenario in early February 1984 in Fort Kent.  The 4th had been 25° AN and 2/5 was only a bit cooler, with the 6 PM forecast calling for colder wx and 1-3" for the overnight .  At my 9 PM obs time it was 23 and puking snow, with 5.5" new.  Storm was done before sunrise with 18.5" total; our 61" snow stake was covered though just barely - there was a bump showing its location.  (By 9 on 2/6 it had settled to 59".)  That surprise caused the only full-day snow closure of the Ft. Kent system in our 10 years there, as the plow operators hadn't been warned in time to clear the parking lots.