February 2023 Obs/Discussion

[40/70 Benchmark]

21 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

We had two rounds of a transient pig....one early in the month (like first week)....and then  another around Jan 15-18....but yeah, it hasn't been parked there for weeks like we typically see in torch patterns.

That is what I expected.....but the obscene warmth and utter lack of snow? Nope....I thought it would be around normal snowfall with maybe a hair above avg temps.

[TauntonBlizzard2013]

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

That is what I expected.....but the obscene warmth and utter lack of snow? Nope....I thought it would be around normal snowfall with maybe a hair above avg temps.

I haven’t even kept track of snow we’ve had so little, maybe like 6”? This has been worse than an all out blowtorch, because we’ve had plenty of precip, it’s just been all rain, and it’s been cloudy like every fucking day.

It’s going to be a heavy lift for anyone in SNE to approach even 50% of climo without a bonafide big storm.

[Great Snow 1717]

14 minutes ago, TauntonBlizzard2013 said:

I haven’t even kept track of snow we’ve had so little, maybe like 6”? This has been worse than an all out blowtorch, because we’ve had plenty of precip, it’s just been all rain, and it’s been cloudy like every fucking day.

It’s going to be a heavy lift for anyone in SNE to approach even 50% of climo without a bonafide big storm.

Every winter forecast that predicted normal to above above normal snowfall and/or  normal to below normal temps is well on its way to busting badly

[WxWatcher007]

53 minutes ago, mahk_webstah said:

That is broadly what I thought was the situation.  That will bring shots of snow to all or most of New England.   The panic is undignfied for New England.  Scooter highs and such.  Maybe the Chiefs losing will bring a "Scooter high."

 

41 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I know the pattern has had its issues with deep lows out west, etc....but 4" in most of CT?

Wow...

This. Congrats NNE, but down here in the lowlands of CT we’re rolling into February at less than 20% of climo snow. I’m at 13% of climo and the warmth has been absurd. We’re not even in the game seriously to be in striking distance of normal. It’s ok to be real about the unfolding disaster. It hadn’t been everywhere, but it has been here.

Even when it does snow again, we need a historic period to claw back close to climo. 

[powderfreak]

1 hour ago, SouthCoastMA said:

It's the equivalent of late July in that regard. I don't think Kevin has been in a darker place 

That's true, I had my dates wrong.  .  

[Modfan2]

15 minutes ago, WxWatcher007 said:

 

This. Congrats NNE, but down here in the lowlands of CT we’re rolling into February at less than 20% of climo snow. I’m at 13% of climo and the warmth has been absurd. We’re not even in the game seriously to be in striking distance of normal. It’s ok to be real about the unfolding disaster. It hadn’t been everywhere, but it has been here.

Even when it does snow again, we need a historic period to claw back close to climo. 

But it’s not like it’s dry either, approaching 6” of rain for the month, which would be good for July never mind in January.

[Typhoon Tip]

Little bit long op-ed:

There's kind of a subjective-objective relay going on ...  ( that phrase makes no sense ha!)  ... But, in short, the pattern may look below... it averages a little below in verification.  It may look modestly above average, we get a Feb 2017 run at 80. 

Perhaps not exactly like that... But when on the subjective side of the relay, whatever the pattern modeled impression has been, the objective or observed after numbers are consummately biasing warmer relative to whatever even the 'best' effort was to be fair.  

You know - ha ha - maybe that is how climate change manifest.   Not in why x-y-z storm flopped to rain.  Nor why a-b-c models can't stabilize the teleconnector mass-fields. This may cast an allusion to models not handling a warming world - that may be the source for that debate, as it's coming from the side of supposed technology failure - nothing about the preceding or succeeding takes a side in said debate.

I have given some thought to this latter debate about warmth vs modeling the atmosphere. 

Firstly, it is entirely correct to assert the physics in the models are properly assessing based on fixed thermodynamic and fluid mechanical computations.  That's not debatable.  Warmer or cooler world has zero effectiveness on those physics - to employ metaphor: the formulas (ultimately the models) are machinery... and the gears in that machine do not differentiate just because they are fed warm(cooler) values respectively.   

However, the trope, 'it is not that simple' unfortunately may be apropos. 

The following are questions worth science journey in my mind that should be answered before attempting any conclusions - a process that would likely only engender even more questions...

In a warmer(ing) world, there could conceivably be spatial or dimensional ( time included...) layout changes in the mean jet positions.  Example, summer HC expansion ... pushes the ambient summer jet farther N, where then C-forcing causes changes in the evolution, length and amplitude of ST ridging residence and resonance W-E...  In the winter, ambient gradient is adding balanced geopotential wind speed of the flow - faster flow could certainly also lend to altering the typical planetary wave dimensions (speed in the flow is a variable in wave mechanics).  It's mathematical...  

These above aspect would have to be proven as non-factor-able.  Because here is why that really matters.  Yes the models will predict positions of jets based on what they are given... But, if those positions are different than the statistical past climate, that would impose break-downs wrt Teleconnection correlations: statistically suggestive tendencies in region B, due to modulation(s) taking place in region A. 

In short...  a -NAO of -2 SD, west or east limb, may correlate to D.C. to Boston's weather typology, differently than prior to the modulation of the jet fields - if this latter is proven to be true. 

It's a fascinating discussion.

I don't - or tend not to rather, suggest this year is a 'victim' of something in the above field of supposition and vague posits, outright. What is happening could certainly take place 100 years ago.  Take the 06z GFS...  I saw three disturbances that could snow. 

The problem this year is an unrelenting destructive interference predicament, a persistence that doesn't lend to any notion that it will suddenly become constructively interfering, and at last allow anything to f*ing happen at all.

There's something about this year that seems to not be able to overcome the destructive interference scenario - which is basically when you have sufficient disturbances, cold vs warm gradient in every direction ... yet lack crucial phases for interaction.  One trick that may help elucidate, if you loop most GFS deterministic solutions, really fast, such that you get a fast motion impression of what's going on, what emerges is a sense that there are two QPF pathways. They parallel one another, but never the twain shall meet.  One is snow, the other is rain, disconnected - often a gap of zero QPF aisles between. And it has been like this since the Xmas debacle, really. That is an emergent property, in the virtual mean of the model run, exposing failed interaction of critical mass fields -imho.

I roll eyes and don't want to hear it said that there is a lack of S/Ws, or no cold air... That's not what is/has been going on. There is a construction problem in the systemic circulation, all over the hemisphere, that's resulting in < climate storm production. 

Maybe it's La Nina. Maybe it's climate change.  Maybe it's both.  Maybe it's just dumb f*ing luck - bad luck. Or maybe it's all three... It is what it is.  

[HoarfrostHubb]

46 minutes ago, TauntonBlizzard2013 said:

I haven’t even kept track of snow we’ve had so little, maybe like 6”? This has been worse than an all out blowtorch, because we’ve had plenty of precip, it’s just been all rain, and it’s been cloudy like every fucking day.

It’s going to be a heavy lift for anyone in SNE to approach even 50% of climo without a bonafide big storm.

50% for me is around 35-36" (I'm at 34.5" now) ... so that is doable.  But it has been crappy up until the last 10 days.  And even that has been meh

[TalcottWx]

3 hours ago, CoastalWx said:

How the eff do you let that penalty in a tie game decide the AFC Championship game. 

Thank you. That was a terrible finish to an otherwise great football game. The officiating was embarrassing. I wonder how much the head official had on the chiefs. Is Tim Donaghy working for the NFL now? Way to ruin a great game. 

[Spanks45]

I love how close the 12z GFS was to at least "something" before the big chill.....big shift north at least

[TalcottWx]

12 hours ago, 78Blizzard said:

That statement would have applied a month ago, too, just substituting January for February, after a crummy December.  We all know now how January has worked out. 

Two months doesn't make a winter, but it's a pretty good indication of where we're going for the remainder.  Trends are hard to reverse, especially ones of this length.

 

I agree with this generally for sure. There seems to be a mark around MLK day where if you have had a trash winter, it will probably continue to be a trash winter. I'd have to check the numbers, but it adds up in my memory. 

[Torch Tiger]

34 minutes ago, WxWatcher007 said:

 

This. Congrats NNE, but down here in the lowlands of CT we’re rolling into February at less than 20% of climo snow. I’m at 13% of climo and the warmth has been absurd. We’re not even in the game seriously to be in striking distance of normal. It’s ok to be real about the unfolding disaster. It hadn’t been everywhere, but it has been here.

Even when it does snow again, we need a historic period to claw back close to climo. 

A stretch of two 6-12"s and a few scrappy 1-3 or 2-4, and you're not far from climo.

[WxWatcher007]

8 minutes ago, Torch Tiger said:

A stretch of two 6-12"s and a few scrappy 1-3 or 2-4, and you're not far from climo.

Two low end warning level events would get me to 18”. Let’s be generous and say that there are three additional 4” events. That just gets me to 30”, or 2/3 of climo. That’s not terribly close imo. 

Say nothing of the fact that we’d need 5 substantial snow events over the next 8 weeks lol.

[RDRY]

17 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Little bit long op-ed:

There's kind of a subjective-objective relay going on ...  ( that phrase makes no sense ha!)  ... But, in short, the pattern may look below... it averages a little below in verification.  It may look modestly above average, we get a Feb 2017 run at 80. 

Perhaps not exactly like that... But when on the subjective side of the relay, whatever the pattern modeled impression has been, the objective or observed after numbers are consummately biasing warmer relative to whatever even the 'best' effort was to be fair.  

You know - ha ha - maybe that is how climate change manifest.   Not in why x-y-z storm flopped to rain.  Nor why a-b-c models can stabilize the teleconnector mass-fields. This may cast an allusion to models not handling a warming world - that may be the source for that debate, as it's coming from the side of supposed technology failure - nothing about the succeeding takes a side in said debate.

I have given some thought to this latter debate about warmth vs modeling the atmosphere. 

Firstly, it is entirely correct to assert the physics in the models are properly assessing based on fixed thermodynamic and fluid mechanical computations.  That's not debatable.  Warmer or cooler world has zero effectiveness on those physics - to employ metaphor: the formulas (ultimately the models) are machinery... and the gears in that machine do not differentiate just because they are fed warm(cooler) values respectively.   

However, the trope, 'it is not that simple' unfortunately may be apropos. 

The following are questions worth science journey in my mind that should be answered before attempting any conclusions - a process that would likely only engender even more questions...

In a warmer(ing) world, there could conceivably be spatial or dimensional ( time included...) layout changes in the mean jet positions.  Example, summer HC expansion ... pushes the ambient summer jet farther N, where then C-forcing causes changes in the evolution, length and amplitude of ST ridging residence and resonance W-E...  In the winter, ambient gradient is adding balanced geopotential wind speed of the flow - faster flow could certainly also lend to altering the typical planetary wave dimensions (speed in the flow is a variable in wave mechanics).  It's mathematical...  

These above aspect would have to be proven as non-factor-able.  Because here is why that really matters.  Yes the models will predict positions of jets based on what they are given... But, if those positions are different than the statistical past climate, that would impose break-downs wrt Teleconnection correlations: statistically suggestive tendencies in region B, due to modulation(s) taking place in region A. 

In short...  a -NAO of -2 SD, west or east limb, may correlate to D.C. to Boston's weather typology, differently than prior to the modulation of the jet fields - if this latter is proven to be true. 

It's a fascinating discussion.

I don't - or tend not to rather, suggest this year is a 'victim' of something in the above field of supposition and vague posits, outright. What is happening could certainly take place 100 years ago.  Take the 06z GFS...  I saw three disturbances that could snow. 

The problem this year is an unrelenting destructive interference predicament, a persistence that doesn't lend to any notion that it will suddenly become constructively interfering, and at last allow anything to f*ing happen at all.

There's something about this year that seems to not be able to overcome the destructive interference scenario - which is basically when you have sufficient disturbances, cold vs warm gradient in every direction ... yet lack crucial phases for interaction.  One trick that may help elucidate, if you loop most GFS deterministic solutions, really fast, such that you get a fast motion impression of what's going on, what emerges is a sense that there are two QPF pathways. They parallel one another, but never the twain shall meet.  One is snow, the other is rain, disconnected - often a gap of zero QPF aisles between. And it has been like this since the Xmas debacle, really. That is an emergent property, in the virtual mean of the model run, exposing failed interaction of critical mass fields -imho.

I roll eyes and don't want to hear it said that there is a lack of S/Ws, or no cold air... That's not what is/has been going on. There is a construction problem in the systemic circulation, all over the hemisphere, that's resulting in < climate storm production. 

Maybe it's La Nina. Maybe it's climate change.  Maybe it's both.  Maybe it's just dumb f*ing luck - bad luck. Or maybe it's all three... It is what it is.  

Probably cyclical. The previous two decades saw an inordinate number of prolific phasers, at least on the east coast.

[40/70 Benchmark]

26 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

roll eyes and don't want to hear it said that there is a lack of S/Ws, or no cold air... That's not what is/has been going on. There is a construction problem in the systemic circulation, all over the hemisphere, that's resulting in < climate storm production. 

Well, that was going on in January.....the month had over 5" of precip with a +8 anomaly.

[WxWatcher007]

A little interesting to see the GFS move the precip with that wave Friday move closer and closer. On an island.

[UnitedWx]

21 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Little bit long op-ed:

There's kind of a subjective-objective relay going on ...  ( that phrase makes no sense ha!)  ... But, in short, the pattern may look below... it averages a little below in verification.  It may look modestly above average, we get a Feb 2017 run at 80. 

Perhaps not exactly like that... But when on the subjective side of the relay, whatever the pattern modeled impression has been, the objective or observed after numbers are consummately biasing warmer relative to whatever even the 'best' effort was to be fair.  

You know - ha ha - maybe that is how climate change manifest.   Not in why x-y-z storm flopped to rain.  Nor why a-b-c models can stabilize the teleconnector mass-fields. This may cast an allusion to models not handling a warming world - that may be the source for that debate, as it's coming from the side of supposed technology failure - nothing about the succeeding takes a side in said debate.

I have given some thought to this latter debate about warmth vs modeling the atmosphere. 

Firstly, it is entirely correct to assert the physics in the models are properly assessing based on fixed thermodynamic and fluid mechanical computations.  That's not debatable.  Warmer or cooler world has zero effectiveness on those physics - to employ metaphor: the formulas (ultimately the models) are machinery... and the gears in that machine do not differentiate just because they are fed warm(cooler) values respectively.   

However, the trope, 'it is not that simple' unfortunately may be apropos. 

The following are questions worth science journey in my mind that should be answered before attempting any conclusions - a process that would likely only engender even more questions...

In a warmer(ing) world, there could conceivably be spatial or dimensional ( time included...) layout changes in the mean jet positions.  Example, summer HC expansion ... pushes the ambient summer jet farther N, where then C-forcing causes changes in the evolution, length and amplitude of ST ridging residence and resonance W-E...  In the winter, ambient gradient is adding balanced geopotential wind speed of the flow - faster flow could certainly also lend to altering the typical planetary wave dimensions (speed in the flow is a variable in wave mechanics).  It's mathematical...  

These above aspect would have to be proven as non-factor-able.  Because here is why that really matters.  Yes the models will predict positions of jets based on what they are given... But, if those positions are different than the statistical past climate, that would impose break-downs wrt Teleconnection correlations: statistically suggestive tendencies in region B, due to modulation(s) taking place in region A. 

In short...  a -NAO of -2 SD, west or east limb, may correlate to D.C. to Boston's weather typology, differently than prior to the modulation of the jet fields - if this latter is proven to be true. 

It's a fascinating discussion.

I don't - or tend not to rather, suggest this year is a 'victim' of something in the above field of supposition and vague posits, outright. What is happening could certainly take place 100 years ago.  Take the 06z GFS...  I saw three disturbances that could snow. 

The problem this year is an unrelenting destructive interference predicament, a persistence that doesn't lend to any notion that it will suddenly become constructively interfering, and at last allow anything to f*ing happen at all.

There's something about this year that seems to not be able to overcome the destructive interference scenario - which is basically when you have sufficient disturbances, cold vs warm gradient in every direction ... yet lack crucial phases for interaction.  One trick that may help elucidate, if you loop most GFS deterministic solutions, really fast, such that you get a fast motion impression of what's going on, what emerges is a sense that there are two QPF pathways. They parallel one another, but never the twain shall meet.  One is snow, the other is rain, disconnected - often a gap of zero QPF aisles between. And it has been like this since the Xmas debacle, really. That is an emergent property, in the virtual mean of the model run, exposing failed interaction of critical mass fields -imho.

I roll eyes and don't want to hear it said that there is a lack of S/Ws, or no cold air... That's not what is/has been going on. There is a construction problem in the systemic circulation, all over the hemisphere, that's resulting in < climate storm production. 

Maybe it's La Nina. Maybe it's climate change.  Maybe it's both.  Maybe it's just dumb f*ing luck - bad luck. Or maybe it's all three... It is what it is.  

Thanks. So... since I am still far from familiar with how the models adjust, calculate etc. my question is how much climo is really built into what they spit out (or up). I mean, I've seen it discussed before but never really thought about how a model could be assuming certain temps vs. just straight up data ingestion. I guess what I'm trying to ask is if these models have any sort of adaptive learning in order to deal with any sort of climate change or would wholesale reprogramming be required? Not even sure I'm wording this question correctly, a mind is a terrible thing.

[UnitedWx]

4 minutes ago, WxWatcher007 said:

A little interesting to see the GFS move the precip with that wave Friday move closer and closer. On an island.

It looks so close but so far on the 6th also

[ORH_wxman]

6 minutes ago, UnitedWx said:

Thanks. So... since I am still far from familiar with how the models adjust, calculate etc. my question is how much climo is really built into what they spit out (or up). I mean, I've seen it discussed before but never really thought about how a model could be assuming certain temps vs. just straight up data ingestion. I guess what I'm trying to ask is if these models have any sort of adaptive learning in order to deal with any sort of climate change or would wholesale reprogramming be required? Not even sure I'm wording this question correctly, a mind is a terrible thing.

Models don't have any "climo" built in. The only aspect that would remotely affect it from a CC perspective is they have the atmospheric composition (how much CO2, etc) in there as constant, but this is updated every few years....so it's not going to cause any material affect on the model output on a 16 day solution. CO2 doesn't increase enough in a 16 day period to matter. Now, certain climate models that go out years might be affected, but usually those have built in emissions increases.

The laws of physics and thermodynamics do not all of the sudden cease to exist because of CC. So there is no magic "climate change variable" to switch on in an NWP model. The data from January 30, 2023 is going to get ingested in the models and they are going to run using equations that obey the laws of physics/thermodynamics/atmospheric dynamics.

[ORH_wxman]

Models are also continuously getting more skilled and errors getting smaller than previous versions of these models....so CC isn't causing model performance degradation. Or if it is, it's not enough to keep up with the other improvements in models, otherwise the model verification would not be improving like it has. 10-15 years ago, we had far more huge swings in model solutions inside of 3-4 days than we do now.

[UnitedWx]

Thanks Will. I was also wondering if there's any sort of assumed temps used in the calculations vs. real time data ingestion. Kind of like the old line we used to hear from some when storms were on the horizon "when is the actual sampling happening" LOL

[NW_of_GYX]

This week is quiet but next week could have some trackable events starting with Monday 2/6. Also nothing to stop Friday from trending N so worth watching for SNE. 

[Typhoon Tip]

14 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Well, that was going on in January.....the month had over 5" of precip with a +8 anomaly.

There was cold air around ... it did not get involved ( crucially) ...

One takes risks when summarily looking at end numbers then drafting damning conclusions, either way.  Have to understand what happened at discrete scales. 

[UnitedWx]

2 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Models are also continuously getting more skilled and errors getting smaller than previous versions of these models....so CC isn't causing model performance degradation. Or if it is, it's not enough to keep up with the other improvements in models, otherwise the model verification would not be improving like it has. 10-15 years ago, we had far more huge swings in model solutions inside of 3-4 days than we do now.

Didn't mean to suggest CC is what is the problem here, or with models.  I lived through enough 80s winters to realize this will happen at times

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 minute ago, Typhoon Tip said:

There was cold air around ... it did not get involved ( crucially) ...

One takes risks when summarily looking at end numbers then drafting damning conclusions, either way.  Have to understand what happened at discrete scales. 

It was around on the globe, yes....just not on this continent.

[The 4 Seasons]

1 hour ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I know the pattern has had its issues with deep lows out west, etc....but 4" in most of CT?

Wow...

Here's where CT is to date. This is the first one i've made for this season. There was really no reason to do it other than to highlight the utter futility we are experiencing. Most of southern coastal CT and low elevation towns have only had one measurable snowfall to date which was Dec 11-12th. Generally south of 84 is around 4" or less, 84-north is around 5-12" and the NW hills in the 12-18 range.

To date this is probably the worst winter to date since 2006-2007, Which was also really brutal and didn't experience its first widespread significant snowfall (and lots of sleet) until V-day. 

Reports are from here, CoCoRaHs, and official climate sites.

BDR - 0.8"

BDL - 9.4"

 

[Typhoon Tip]

40 minutes ago, RDRY said:

Probably cyclical. The previous two decades saw an inordinate number of prolific phasers, at least on the east coast.

Yeah... and also, folks should think of the destructive vs constructive interference as not one or the other.   It's really about phasing proficiency.  Doing so in/at different aspects dimensions, as well.

Example, .. do EPOs tend ( for whatever reason ) to move in concert with NAOs...  ?  Or, do these subsidiary polar indexes of the AO, disconnect from the AO - a lesser likely state, but one that happens from time to time.  But also, how these field d(mode) wrt to one another... It's true with the PNA and WPO ..etc etc...

The d(modes) in d(time) is one dimensional aspect.  It can influence the proficiencies at sub-index scales, too, more indirectly.   

Basically there's no end to this rabbit hole of complexity so ... trying to parse cycles would have it's own headaches capable of putting one into a coma long before they hit the insurmountable task of enduring CC's addition administration of pain LOL 

[ORH_wxman]

1 minute ago, UnitedWx said:

Didn't mean to suggest CC is what is the problem here, or with models.  I lived through enough 80s winters to realize this will happen at times

I'm not talking lack of snow (yes anyone who lived through the dark years knows it can happen)...I was strictly speaking in terms of model performance. I know some had asked or speculated that CC was causing models to do things they normally wouldn't do...and the answer is no other than the data it ingests might be warmer than it was 20 years ago, but it's not going to change how the models calculate....physics is still physics and all of our thermodynamic and atmospheric dynamic equations are still the same regardless of whether temps are 1C warmer or not.

9 minutes ago, UnitedWx said:

Thanks Will. I was also wondering if there's any sort of assumed temps used in the calculations vs. real time data ingestion. Kind of like the old line we used to hear from some when storms were on the horizon "when is the actual sampling happening" LOL

So the models calculate 2m temps with lapse rates (adiabatic processes) and use diurnal effects to change them via diabatic heating/radiational cooling. (diabatic heating is mostly from the sun being up during the daylight hours)

The models can "See" the cold shot right now fairly well because the PV is over Hudson Bay where sampling won't be as bad as in the arctic ocean or near the pole. The models might not fully be accurate in how far south the cold shot gets, but they know it's going to be intense because 850 temps are already below -30C in that PV and the whole thing intensifies before moving in which would make it even colder (hence the -40C readings on some of these runs).

[Typhoon Tip]

9 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

It was around on the globe, yes....just not on this continent.

Right - and if that is true... it was out of phase.

[40/70 Benchmark]

Just now, Typhoon Tip said:

Right - and if that is true... it was out of phase.

Yes. My mistake....I initially worded that poorly.