January 2023 Obs/Discussion

[ORH_wxman]

7 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Everyone does realize that a significant portion of SNE hasn't done badly in terms of snowfall over the past several years, right?

That stretch from the late 80s into the early 90s was worse on a regional scale.

The 1988-89 through 1991-92 winters are unmatched in ORH in the record for futility. Just an utterly brutal stretch. Not a single 10”+ storm in 4 consecutive winters (no other period in the record has even 3 winters in a row…nevermind 4)

[WinterWolf]

1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said:

While I agree we’ve mostly verified crappy looks (exception was we did get a nice pattern for about 10-12 days in December but didn’t cash in outside of CNE/NNE), there’s no reason to go post-modern and say the extended doesn’t look good when it actually does. We can obviously discuss whether we think it will verify or not, but as shown, it’s a much colder look than we’ve had. 

Thank you. Maybe it doesn’t verify, but the look is good. I don’t know why folks get mad when you say what it shows? 

[WinterWolf]

8 minutes ago, WxWatcher007 said:

They look better and better up there. 

Ya it’s starting to come together for them now. 

[UnitedWx]

13 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Everyone does realize that a significant portion of SNE hasn't done badly in terms of snowfall over the past several years, right?

That stretch from the late 80s into the early 90s was worse on a regional scale.

No they don't apparently. The young ones have been very spoiled around this area many times, to the point that even average years don't satisfy the weenie. Get one like we've had so far and they're off the deep end

[40/70 Benchmark]

Just now, UnitedWx said:

No they don't apparently. The young ones have been very spoiled around this area many times, to the point that even average years don't satisfy the weenie. Get one like we've had so far and they're off the deep end

It's not just the young ones, apparently. 

[UnitedWx]

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

It's not just the young ones, apparently. 

Well... true

[wxsniss]

20 hours ago, weathafella said:

The 2005 storm was amazing.  It started late day Saturday.  Saturday AM BOS was -2 but rotted around 28-30 during the first 8 hours of the event before the cf swung back SE.  I manually shoveled 2 feet +.   

 

20 hours ago, CoastalWx said:

It's rare for me to be jealous of the Cape with a storm, but I was for this one.

Sorry for the nostalgia... Jan 2005 and April 1997 top all-time for me. Most extreme winter storms I've ever experienced.

Feels like an imagined memory given the sewage regime we're in now, but this was real and it was spectacular.

1/22/05 Saturday night, scenes in the Longwood medical area and Harvard Square:

   

(Edit: anyone know how to embed videos?)

 

 

[eduggs]

5 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

While I agree we’ve mostly verified crappy looks (exception was we did get a nice pattern for about 10-12 days in December but didn’t cash in outside of CNE/NNE), there’s no reason to go post-modern and say the extended doesn’t look good when it actually does. We can obviously discuss whether we think it will verify or not, but as shown, it’s a much colder look than we’ve had. 

I just think "patterns" and "good looks" are vastly oversimplified. They are phrases coined from Mt. Stupid for those familiar with Dunning-Kruger. Everybody loves to think these concepts are strongly correlated with local snow. I concede there is a correlation, I just think it's relatively weak. I believe snow is a local phenomenon that is often given or denied by nuance in the evolution of features. 

Even if "patterns" are definable to a degree that allows meaningful local correlations with weather outcomes, we cannot see these patterns coming any better than we can see, for example, specific longitudinal jet structures and height fields. So my feeling is that most are sniffing around in the wrong places. I would think experiences like this winter would cause some to see the light... but many stubbornly persist.

[weathafella]

It seems that once a decade we’ve had severe ratters threatening futility records.  For those of us who largely missed out on the October bomb of 2011, the last was 2011-12.   We’ll soon know if this is the 2020s candidate.

[40/70 Benchmark]

9 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

The 1988-89 through 1991-92 winters are unmatched in ORH in the record for futility. Just an utterly brutal stretch. Not a single 10”+ storm in 4 consecutive winters (no other period in the record has even 3 winters in a row…nevermind 4)

Yea, that "barks" of global warming augmenting snowfall....it requires qualitative analysis, but we haven't seen a period that dire in the 30 plus years since. In fact, global warming maybe enhancing snowfall so quickly that the 30 year climo period doesn't fully capture it.

-end sarcasm-

[Typhoon Tip]

1 minute ago, eduggs said:

I just think "patterns" and "good looks" are vastly oversimplified. They are phrases coined from Mt. Stupid for those familiar with Dunning-Kruger. Everybody loves to think these concepts are strongly correlated with local snow. I concede there is a correlation, I just think it's relatively weak. I believe snow is a local phenomenon that is often given or denied by nuance in the evolution of features. 

Even if "patterns" are definable to a degree that allows meaningful local correlations with weather outcomes, we cannot see these patterns coming any better than we can see, for example, specific longitudinal jet structures and height fields. So my feeling is that most are sniffing around in the wrong places. I would think experiences like this winter would cause some to see the light... but many stubbornly persist.

mm,  I wouldn't call the correlation weak.   It's just not 1::1.

[WxWatcher007]

I’m not sure what the argument is—it’s a pretty terrible half decade for a lot of people but it can be worse?

What does that matter when it’s a half decade of futility on balance? 

We’ll be ok eventually, but it’s objectively bad now and will continue to be such until one of these good long range looks materializes. 

[TauntonBlizzard2013]

Next Friday looks promising for at least a light event up north 

[40/70 Benchmark]

4 minutes ago, WxWatcher007 said:

I’m not sure what the argument is—it’s a pretty terrible half decade for a lot of people but it can be worse?

What does that matter when it’s a half decade of futility on balance? 

We’ll be ok eventually, but it’s objectively bad now and will continue to be such until one of these good long range looks materializes. 

Eventually I'm sure it will begin to impact it more, but in the mean time...I think the impact is overstated bc much of the increase in temperature is at night. The greenhouse gasses are inhibiting the escape of heat during traditional cooling more than anything else. This is why much of those wild positive temp departures are achieved while we sleep under starry skies. Not ALL of it...we are seeing more insanely warm day time highs, but I think the negative impact of that on snowfall is being offset my the increase in mositure...for now.

[eduggs]

12 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

mm,  I wouldn't call the correlation weak.   It's just not 1::1.

Call it modest or moderate then - whatever you like; semantics. And lets define it as the correlation between certain geophysical parameters and something like temperature or east coast cyclogenesis. Because snow is truly a local realization.

The other problem is temporal in nature: the correlation between the "look" of the future "pattern" today and the eventual weather outcome. These things are not so well correlated out beyond 10 days because modeling has minimal skill at this range.

So really what you're talking about is the correlation between a characterization of the "pattern" today and the weather today... which is admittedly a somewhat stronger correlation. Though still not great with today's "pattern" vs. weather outcome a good example. However, that's still a very different thing than the future correlations that everybody refers to when they talk about a "good look."

[ORH_wxman]

16 minutes ago, eduggs said:

I just think "patterns" and "good looks" are vastly oversimplified. They are phrases coined from Mt. Stupid for those familiar with Dunning-Kruger. Everybody loves to think these concepts are strongly correlated with local snow. I concede there is a correlation, I just think it's relatively weak. I believe snow is a local phenomenon that is often given or denied by nuance in the evolution of features. 

Even if "patterns" are definable to a degree that allows meaningful local correlations with weather outcomes, we cannot see these patterns coming any better than we can see, for example, specific longitudinal jet structures and height fields. So my feeling is that most are sniffing around in the wrong places. I would think experiences like this winter would cause some to see the light... but many stubbornly persist.

I think you have a point in the “certainty” aspect. But I disagree with the magnitude of your claim. Very frequently, we can see better setups coming in advance. If people take that as a claim that good snow events are definitely going to happen, then it’s on them, not the original poster…unless the original poster is making those claims. 
 

Pattern talk is inherently going to be less certain than discussing a synoptic setup 4-5 days out…I think most understand that. There’s a reason that very often you’ll see the phrase “let’s get that inside of 10 days…” or some iteration of that. 
 

We used to have a separate thread for just pattern talk a few years back that you may or may not recall, but it seems like it always eventually just got smeared into the monthly threads so we stopped doing them. 

[Typhoon Tip]

32 minutes ago, NorEastermass128 said:

Good point. We regress. We probably have at least several more years of penance to endure before we see good times again. 

Yeah...but we're not regressing if we're in a different climate.  That's the point.

Once we've differentiated into a new paradigm, there is no retrogression in the sense of fixing or 'correcting', because that retro no longer fits the a climate the region is no longer a part of.

It's looking at apples and oranges comparing the 1980s to now, really.   The results may be the same, the the cause is not coming from the same aspects.  

So presently it is warmer than normal almost unilaterally year to year, as well ... snowing with a different behavior. We have a higher frequency of big events, ... separated by longer periods of non-events.  

[HoarfrostHubb]

1 hour ago, #NoPoles said:

The summit of Mammoth Mtn has reported over 441 inches of snow...

That is absolutely incredible

They could get another 75” in the next few days

[OceanStWx]

14 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Eventually I'm sure it will begin to impact it more, but in the mean time...I think the impact is overstated bc much of the increase in temperature is at night. The greenhouse gasses are inhibiting the escape of heat during traditional cooling more than anything else. This is why much of those wild positive temp departures are achieved while we sleep under starry skies. Not ALL of it...we are seeing more insanely warm day time highs, but I think the negative impact of that on snowfall is being offset my the increase in mositure...for now.

I don't have the numbers handy right now, but it's something like every degree warmer is 4% more water vapor. So there are definitely positive feedbacks as well as negative. No doubt it will continue to be cold enough to snow. Mentally I'm pretty much preparing myself for more of our snow coming on fewer days, and fewer days with snowcover. 

If the pattern evolves like guidance is showing, we should be able to make some good gains in our northern zones anyway, if not down here. The western trof/Southeast ridge could just result in a bunch of 4-6ers for our CAD zones.

[Typhoon Tip]

22 minutes ago, eduggs said:

Call it modest or moderate then - whatever you like; semantics. And lets define it as the correlation between certain geophysical parameters and something like temperature or east coast cyclogenesis. Because snow is truly a local realization.

The other problem is temporal in nature: the correlation between the "look" of the future "pattern" today and the eventual weather outcome. These things are not so well correlated out beyond 10 days because modeling has minimal skill at this range.

So really what you're talking about is the correlation between a characterization of the "pattern" today and the weather today... which is admittedly a somewhat stronger correlation. Though still not great with today's "pattern" vs. weather outcome a good example. However, that's still a very different thing than the future correlations that everybody refers to when they talk about a "good look."

nnno, it's not merely semantics.  In regions where it snows, they are going to snow more likely in a pattern that is both numerically and spatially in +PNA, with leading and/or concurrent polar indicators, than otherwise.

It's better just to realize it is not 1::1 and not try to cripple the correlation with moderate this or weak that or any of those adjectives. Correlation is not causation blah blah..but it works both ways, and that is why the correlation is not 1::1.

The blunt difficulty and frustration here is really that we are rolling bad dice right now, and it is driving people to agitation, to question the conventional method. No matter how articulate we pen our turn of phrases.   

We can "maybe" offer speculation that CC is having something to do with it ?.. Sure.  I actually don't have a problem with that, but that's drifting in the discussion, actually. 

[STILL N OF PIKE]

I just don’t think it’s a “good look” . Maybe it’s semantics ...but a western trough and some Se ridge isn’t a good look to me unless your in NNE . Feels like we been pressing and this is just comparing to the bad look we’ve had that it looks “ good” 

I’d love bob to chime in on if it’s a good look for SNE Cp bc I don’t see it , seems “so-so / workable / messy “ 

[WinterWolf]

2 minutes ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

I just don’t think it’s a “good look” . Maybe it’s semantics ...but a western trough and Se ridge isn’t a good look to me unless your in NNE . Feels like we been pressing and this is just comparing to the bad look we’ve had that it looks “ good” 

I’d love bob to chime in on if it’s a good look for SNE Cp bc I don’t see it , seems so-so / workable / messy 

Will just said it’s a much better look lol…doesn’t guarantee anything. But much better than what we got. 

[ORH_wxman]

1 minute ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

I just don’t think it’s a “good look” . Maybe it’s semantics ...but a western trough and Se ridge isn’t a good look to me unless your in NNE . Feels like we been pressing and this is just comparing to the bad look we’ve had that it looks “ good” 

I’d love bob to chime in on if it’s a good look for SNE Cp bc I don’t see it , seems so-so / workable / messy 

Depends where the PV is….if it’s in Hudson Bay or eastward, that is pretty good for us. We’ve seen that pattern before and done well in it. It’s not a 2015 look, but very few patterns are. 
 

If PV drops into like Alberta or something, then it’s a lot worse because we won’t get fresh arctic airmasses in here ahead of any potential SWFEs (which often turn into cutters if you have weak or not confluence and a bad antecedent airmass) 

[STILL N OF PIKE]

Just now, ORH_wxman said:

Depends where the PV is….if it’s in Hudson Bay or eastward, that is pretty good for us. We’ve seen that pattern before and done well in it. It’s not a 2015 look, but very few patterns are. 
 

If PV drops into like Alberta or something, then it’s a lot worse because we won’t get fresh arctic airmasses in here ahead of any potential SWFEs (which often turn into cutters if you have weak or not confluence and a bad antecedent airmass) 

Thanks 

[ORH_wxman]

Euro trying to dump on pike-northward for next Thursday night. Still not buying that though. I think that one can be good for NNE though. 

[Typhoon Tip]

Anyway..by a narrow margin the Euro's SWFE keeps it mainly snow N of the Pike... But it's real tight.  Like 10 mile wide IP, 5 miles of ZR and then R in CT/RI.. 

But the cold/BL resistance is working magic ...forcing secondary, and once that happens everything collapses to S-

[WinterWolf]

2 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Euro trying to dump on pike-northward for next Thursday night. Still not buying that though. I think that one can be good for NNE though. 

Does it still show that big bastard out on the 23-24th? 

[ORH_wxman]

4 minutes ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

Thanks 

No problem…I’d say it’s fine to still be concerned. It could easily look worse for us as we get closer. I’m not buying in yet either. I want to see those arctic airmasses spill over into New England first before getting hyped up for potential snow events. 

[Typhoon Tip]

CNE ski areas probably do well with that IVT/e flow lingering ...

[ORH_wxman]

4 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

Does it still show that big bastard out on the 23-24th? 

It’s got something brewing but that event has all sorts of problems too. Until a true arctic airmass gets into New England, any systems coming up through the Oh valley is going to be a problem…:barring perfect timing on confluence.