Winter 2022-2023 Conjecture

[40/70 Benchmark]

My early money on a weak to perhaps moderate el nino....perhaps modified version of 1976-1977, 2002-2003, or 1986-1987.

While my snowfall forecasts have been decent overall, they have definitely been somewhat "hit or miss"....but my ENSO calls have been pretty lethal.

[ma blizzard]

not concerned we see 3rd year la niña? 

[George001]

I hope it stays weak so 2014-2015, 1977-1978, and 2004-2005 become better analogs rather than say 2009-2010 or even worse 2015-2016 being an analog for a stronger nino.

[George001]

4 hours ago, ma blizzard said:

not concerned we see 3rd year la niña? 

Nina isn’t bad for New England. We just need the polar vortex to cooperate.

[Ginx snewx]

My call

Queens be queenin 

Jack's be jacking

Me, sitting back smilin

[512high]

5 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

My early money on a weak to perhaps moderate el nino....perhaps modified version of 1976-1977, 2002-2003, or 1986-1987.

While my snowfall forecasts have been decent overall, they have definitely been somewhat "hit or miss"....but my ENSO calls have been pretty lethal.

Well nice to see you already thinking of next season! I don't know if I would call this past season (2021-2022) unless something verifies last minute a "ratter" for (ASH)however, my totals, well just sucks lol. I know many enjoy high temps and high dews, not me, with that said we all wait our turns for favorite seasons. Ray, keep the faith, it will be here before you know.

[Great Snow 1717]

16 hours ago, George001 said:

I hope it stays weak so 2014-2015, 1977-1978, and 2004-2005 become better analogs rather than say 2009-2010 or even worse 2015-2016 being an analog for a stronger nino.

How many analog years busted badly for the winter of 21-22??? 

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 hours ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

How many analog years busted badly for the winter of 21-22??? 

Depends how they are used....if you expect any given analog year to be a virtual carbon copy of the forecast season, then they are all pretty likely to fail. ....however, if you are just looking to glean a better idea of what may or may not happen in a given season, then they are very useful. I used some seasons that were pretty snowy, and others that were not snowy at all and very specific reasons were given why.

[Great Snow 1717]

2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Depends how they are used....if you expect any given analog year to be a virtual carbon copy of the forecast season, then they are all pretty likely to fail. ....however, if you are just looking to glean a better idea of what may or may not happen in a given season, then they are very useful. I used some seasons that were pretty snowy, and other that were not snowy at all and very specific reasons were given why.

Not a fan of analog years.

[40/70 Benchmark]

8 minutes ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

Not a fan of analog years.

Well, let me know when you make a concerted effort to apply them. I understand if you do not want to disclose a list of analog seasons per se, but anyone claiming to compose a seasonal forecast without analyzing the past to at least some degree is full of shit.

[Great Snow 1717]

10 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Well, let me know when you make a concerted effort to apply them.

Did you use analog years to come up with your forecast for March???

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 minute ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

Did you use analog years to come up with your forecast for March???

The incorrect ones, absolutely. Don't confuse what I am saying....using analog seasons doesn't mean you have to be right. At the end of the day, regardless of whether you provide a list of seasons or don't, the return rate on accurate forecasts is relatively low.

[40/70 Benchmark]

I'm not sure how you can begin to formulate an idea of what will happen months in advance without analyzing the past to some degree. Again, doesn't have to mean you are right.

[40/70 Benchmark]

There are so many different variables at play, that forecasts miss "something" more often than not...either that, and/or they are not weighted properly into the forecast.

Example...I was able to discern that the Aleutian ridging would have episodes where it extended far enough poleward to induce some notable wintery periods by looking at past east biased la nina seasons..ie, no total blow torch rater like 2011-2012. However, I apparently did not weight the abrupt rise in solar activity that took place last fall heavily enough, so the forecast SSW/blocking never materialized. The poleward Aleutian ridging was able to compromise to a degree, but even that failed in March.

We do know from utilizing analogs of past seasons that an abrupt rise in solar activity is detrimental to blocking, but I made the decision that it wouldn't play as large a role as it apparently did. You can use analogs, and still miss...no one is implying its a "silver bullet"...it is incumbent upon the forecaster to apply and weight them correctly.

[Great Snow 1717]

17 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

The incorrect ones, absolutely. Don't confuse what I am saying....using analog seasons doesn't mean you have to be right. At the end of the day, regardless of whether you provide a list of seasons or don't, the return rate on accurate forecasts is relatively low.

I equate using analog years during this time of climate change to someone thinking a starting pitcher who threw 85-90 mph back in the 90's would have  the same success now that he had back then. Jamie Moyer for example. Moyer would get crushed if he was pitching now. 

 

A few years ago Larry Cosgrove made a great point...essentially that climate change has to be factored in when putting together a seasonal forecast. 

 

Another thing that I am not a fan of is comparing temps to 30 year averages. I think temps should be compared to the entire dataset for a reporting location...and yes I do realize that for some cities/towns the location has changed over time.  Doing so would provide far more evidence of how much the climate has actually changed. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

13 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

There are so many different variables at play, that forecasts miss "something" more often than not...either that, and/or they are not weighted properly into the forecast.

Example...I was able to discern that the Aleutian ridging would have episodes where it extended far enough poleward to induce some notable wintery periods by looking at past east biased la nina seasons..ie, no total blow torch rater like 2011-2012. However, I apparently did not weight the abrupt rise in solar activity that took place last fall heavily enough, so the forecast SSW/blocking never materialized. The poleward Aleutian ridging was able to compromise to a degree, but even that failed in March.

We do know from utilizing analogs of past seasons that an abrupt rise in solar activity is detrimental to blocking, but I made the decision that it wouldn't play as large a role as it apparently did. You can use analogs, and still miss...no one is implying its a "silver bullet"...it is incumbent upon the forecaster to apply and weight them correctly.

 

6 minutes ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

I equate using analog years during this time of climate change to someone thinking a starting pitcher who threw 85-90 mph back in the 90's as having the same success now that he had back then. Jamie Moyer for example. Moyer would get crushed if he was pitching now. 

 

A few years ago Larry Cosgrove made a great point...essentially that climate change has to be factored in when putting together a seasonal forecast. 

 

Another thing that I am not a fan of is comparing temps to 30 year averages. I think temps should be compared to the entire dataset for a reporting location...and yes I do realize that for some cities/towns the location has changed over time.  Doing so would provide far more evidence of how much the climate has actually changed. 

I completely agree with you on that...if I use 1976-1977 as a primary analog, there is no way that I would expect it to be as cold today. Recognizing that and responsibly using analog seasons are not mutually exclusive, they are analogous. Larry Cosgrove would tell you that....he spouts off analog seasons all throughout the lead up to winter.

[Great Snow 1717]

17 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I'm not sure how you can begin to formulate an idea of what will happen months in advance without analyzing the past to some degree. Again, doesn't have to mean you are right.

Back in the day analog years were not mentioned in winter forecasts. What was mentioned were the pattern(s) leading into the winter months and where the main storm tracks were during the fall.   It was more of old school meteorology approach. The mets then would come up with a winter forecast based on their experience, knowledge of the area, and what was taking place during the months leading into the winter.  

Currently Matt Noyes comes the closest. Prior to each month he provides a monthly forecast. He doesn't mention analog years. And he gives his thoughts on why he is making the forecast for that month.  For example, for this March he forecasted the area would likely have normal temps but above normal precip. And he explained why.  

[40/70 Benchmark]

12 minutes ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

Back in the day analog years were not mentioned in winter forecasts. What was mentioned were the pattern(s) leading into the winter months and where the main storm tracks were during the fall.   It was more of old school meteorology approach. The mets then would come up with a winter forecast based on their experience, knowledge of the area, and what was taking place during the months leading into the winter.  

Currently Matt Noyes comes the closest. Prior to each month he provides a monthly forecast. He doesn't mention analog years. And he gives his thoughts on why he is making the forecast for that month.  For example, for this March he forecasted the area would likely have normal temps but above normal precip. And he explained why.  

Well, I would certainly hope Noyes would have better luck forecasting at 30 days lead, as opposed to 3-4 months lead.

I don't really have an issue with a set of analog seasons not being disclosed per se, but I am pretty confident that anyone making a seasonal outlook examines the past to some degree.....even "examining patterns leading into the winter  months" implies that they are comparing it to past seasons in order to try to glean some idea of how the pattern may evolve moving forward. I don't think anyone will forecast a cold winter simply because October, November and December were cold and stormy....patterns flip. 

[Great Snow 1717]

17 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

 

I completely agree with you on that...if I use 1976-1977 as a primary analog, there is no way that I would expect it to be as cold today. Recognizing that and responsibly using analog seasons are not mutually exclusive, they are analogous. Larry Cosgrove would tell you that....he spouts off analog seasons all throughout the lead up to winter.

Prior to this winter 76-77 was being bandied about as an analog year. I mentioned that I would not use that year as an analog year because of climate change. And because it was 45 years ago. Back then the book The Cooling was a popular book....now no one considers that there is an ice age coming.  If my memory is serving me well the book was released in 1976. The timing could have not been better because the winter of 76-77 rolled in.  That winter provided a lot of creditability to the book.  

Speaking of Cosgrove. At one point one of his analog years was 95-96....and then he decided to drop it. 

[Great Snow 1717]

8 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Well, I would certainly hope Noyes would have better luck forecasting at 30 days lead, as opposed to 3-4 months lead.

I don't really have an issue with a set of analog seasons not being disclosed per se, but I am pretty confident that anyone making a seasonal outlook examines the past to some degree.....even "examining patterns leading into the winter  months" implies that they are comparing it to past seasons in order to try to glean some idea of how the pattern may evolve moving forward. I don't think anyone will forecast a cold winter simply because October, November and December were cold and stormy....patterns flip. 

But you have to keep in mind that back then there was less information available to mets. There wasn't mentioning of models and analog years.  It was more of an old school approach to forecasting.  And that led to mets at times having much different forecasts.  Mets back then often took the time to explain their forecasts which is far different than now.  Now mets are like Brian Kenney on the MLB Network...a whole lot of numbers and graphics. 

At one time, back in the dark ages Channel 7 has a weekend met that really went out on a limb....he would give a forecast for the next 7 days during his Sunday evening weather segment ....which was unheard of back then. the following Sunday he would grade his forecast for the previous 7 days and then forecast the next 7 days..I have long forgotten his name. 

Walt Drag is someone I consider to be an old school met. And I mean that as a compliment.  I really enjoyed reading the discussions when he was at Box.  I like Tip's approach also. 

 

 

 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

7 minutes ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

But you have to keep in mind that back then there was less information available to mets. There wasn't mentioning of models and analog years.  It was more of an old school approach to forecasting.  And that led to mets at times having much different forecasts.  Mets back then often took the time to explain their forecasts which is far different than now.  Now mets are like Brian Kenney on the MLB Network...a whole lot of numbers and graphics. 

At one time, back in the dark ages Channel 7 has a weekend met that really went out on a limb....he would give a forecast for the next 7 days during his Sunday evening weather segment ....which was unheard of back then. the following Sunday he would grade his forecast for the previous 7 days and then forecast the next 7 days..I have long forgotten his name. 

Walt Drag is someone I consider to be an old school met. And I mean that as a compliment.  I really enjoyed reading the discussions when he was at Box.  I like Tip's approach also. 

 

 

 

 

Well, I agree with you that if you are going to throw out specific analog seasons, then it is very important to be detailed in explaining what their perceived value is and why. 

[ORH_wxman]

There's no such thing as seasonal forecasting without looking at past seasons....unless you are just going to rip and read a CFS or ECMWF seasonal forecast.

[Great Snow 1717]

Just now, ORH_wxman said:

There's no such thing as seasonal forecasting without looking at past seasons....unless you are just going to rip and read a CFS or ECMWF seasonal forecast.

as I mentioned...the mets experience and knowledge of the area played a role, which means taking into consideration past seasons.  And many mets do just rip and read a model(s) to make their forecasts.  How many actually make a forecast without referencing the models? 

[ORH_wxman]

1 minute ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

as I mentioned...the mets experience and knowledge of the area played a role, which means taking into consideration past seasons.  And many mets do just rip and read a model(s) to make their forecasts.  How many actually make a forecast without referencing the models? 

You can actually do a pretty decent seasonal forecast without looking at a single model....most will look at ENSO conditions along with solar, QBO, etc. Those are real-time obs so they don't require models.

But you cannot do a skilled seasonal forecast without looking at past seasons (i.e. analogs). We have to look at them to know how variables like ENSO affect the pattern.

[Great Snow 1717]

Just now, ORH_wxman said:

You can actually do a pretty decent seasonal forecast without looking at a single model....most will look at ENSO conditions along with solar, QBO, etc. Those are real-time obs so they don't require models.

But you cannot do a skilled seasonal forecast without looking at past seasons (i.e. analogs). We have to look at them to know how variables like ENSO affect the pattern.

How long has the analog information been available for??

[ORH_wxman]

5 minutes ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

How long has the analog information been available for??

Decades in forecasting...an analog is just something comparable to another thing. You can use any variable you want for an analog. The analogs were more primitive the further back you go. Some mets would just look at fall temps and precip and compare those to past years. In the late 1980s/1990s, ENSO probably became the major factor in analogs. It became the primary factor once certain distinct patterns were showing up on ENSO that often repeated themselves. (such as cooler wx in the southeast US and warmer in the upper plains during El Ninos)

Now we have better observations of solar, QBO, snow cover, etc.

New England itself is tougher IMHO because we have a low correlation with ENSO and many other variables compared to places like the southeast or northern plains or Pacific northwest. That's why I have never really attempted seasonal forecasting for winter in New England....but I applaud those who try. Someone will eventually find a better way to forecast here in advance.

[Great Snow 1717]

4 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Decades in forecasting...an analog is just something comparable to another thing. You can use any variable you want for an analog. The analogs were more primitive the further back you go. Some mets would just look at fall temps and precip and compare those to past years. In the late 1980s/1990s, ENSO probably became the major factor in analogs. It became the primary factor once certain distinct patterns were showing up on ENSO that often repeated themselves. (such as cooler wx in the southeast US and warmer in the upper plains during El Ninos)

Now we have better observations of solar, QBO, snow cover, etc.

New England itself is tougher IMHO because we have a low correlation with ENSO and many other variables compared to places like the southeast or northern plains or Pacific northwest. That's why I have never really attempted seasonal forecasting for winter in New England....but I applaud those who try. Someone will eventually find a better way to forecast here in advance.

What do you think  the keys are  for improving seasonal forecasts for New England?

[George001]

2 hours ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

Did you use analog years to come up with your forecast for March???

 

1 hour ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

Prior to this winter 76-77 was being bandied about as an analog year. I mentioned that I would not use that year as an analog year because of climate change. And because it was 45 years ago. Back then the book The Cooling was a popular book....now no one considers that there is an ice age coming.  If my memory is serving me well the book was released in 1976. The timing could have not been better because the winter of 76-77 rolled in.  That winter provided a lot of creditability to the book.  

Speaking of Cosgrove. At one point one of his analog years was 95-96....and then he decided to drop it. 

95-96 looked like a decent analog because due to the strength of the La Niña and it being east based. Unfortunately the polar vortex deepened to record strong levels, which wasn't supposed to happen, especially considering how weak it was in November, but it did anyways. Hopefully it’s weaker next year.

[40/70 Benchmark]

20 minutes ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

What do you think  the keys are  for improving seasonal forecasts for New England?

The largest key is more data IMO.

As far as models go, I look to then for confirmation...they don't constitute my forecast. They aren't very skilled at the seasonal level, either.

[40/70 Benchmark]

Some momentum building for a third consecutive la nina next season. If that were to happen, history is not that bleak for us...its happened three other times: 1956-1957, 1975-1976 and 2000-2001.