3/10 and beyond... all the waves threats

[paulythegun]

12z GFS suppressed on next week's wave. LOL.

[Heisy]

Euro basically says “what storm?“ now… joke

Peace all, cya next Thanksgiving!




.

[Ji]

Euro basically says “what storm?“ now… joke

Peace all, cya next Thanksgiving!




.

Euro sucks. Gfs keeps spanking it

[psuhoffman]

@Heisy something I have been keeping an eye on, and it likely doesn't matter for snow now since its so late...but it would most definitely matter if this was still winter... over the last 2 weeks, and it happens again in a few days which is what kills that hail mary threat you were peeking at...even when the pac jet extends and gets the ridge into the EPO domain...even rolling it into western Canada at times...it can't do much to the SER.  The energy just cuts off under it and dives into the SW anyways.  At times the SER gets beat down as a system crashes over top if it, but it immediately reloads.  That would NEVER work for us because its not the wave that beats down the SER that is a threat for us...it would be a wave AFTER.  If nothing can squash it for more than a day or two there is no legit threat.   Look at the evolution the next 7 days...even with the pac ridge rolling into Canada and a beautiful west NAO block...the SER can't be suppressed much.  I was curious so I looked at the pattern analogs.  And sure enough almost all of them have way less SER than the guidance shows now.  Why would that be.... simple...because everything else about the pattern says there SHOULDNT BE A SER...so when the model looks for analogs the only way to get as strong  SER would be to have things different in every other way and so it would be a way worse match overall than simply picking the analogs where everything else is similar but with less SER.  I noted this a couple other times recently...where the analogs were also saying basically "why is there such a strong SER".   I wish this would be more discussion...instead of simply chalking the SER up to the pac pattern...discuss why is the SER so much stronger than history says it should be at times...including the pac pattern into that equation.  

[Ji]

6 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

@Heisy something I have been keeping an eye on, and it likely doesn't matter for snow now since its so late...but it would most definitely matter if this was still winter... over the last 2 weeks, and it happens again in a few days which is what kills that hail mary threat you were peeking at...even when the pac jet extends and gets the ridge into the EPO domain...even rolling it into western Canada at times...it can't do much to the SER.  The energy just cuts off under it and dives into the SW anyways.  At times the SER gets beat down as a system crashes over top if it, but it immediately reloads.  That would NEVER work for us because its not the wave that beats down the SER that is a threat for us...it would be a wave AFTER.  If nothing can squash it for more than a day or two there is no legit threat.   Look at the evolution the next 7 days...even with the pac ridge rolling into Canada and a beautiful west NAO block...the SER can't be suppressed much.  I was curious so I looked at the pattern analogs.  And sure enough almost all of them have way less SER than the guidance shows now.  Why would that be.... simple...because everything else about the pattern says there SHOULDNT BE A SER...so when the model looks for analogs the only way to get as strong  SER would be to have things different in every other way and so it would be a way worse match overall than simply picking the analogs where everything else is similar but with less SER.  I noted this a couple other times recently...where the analogs were also saying basically "why is there such a strong SER".   I wish this would be more discussion...instead of simply chalking the SER up to the pac pattern...discuss why is the SER so much stronger than history says it should be at times...including the pac pattern into that equation.  

hey PSU---you mentioned a few days ago that its alarming that in those years...where NYC got amazing snow total and we got a bit above average--that should of done alot better. I dont think it was temp related. I think most storms where NYC got crushed and we got nothing was Miller B's. Unless its a Miller B....usually we are in the same game as NYC. We cant do much about Miller Bs..its pretty much based on luck of your location lol---and not really climate change

[psuhoffman]

26 minutes ago, Ji said:

hey PSU---you mentioned a few days ago that its alarming that in those years...where NYC got amazing snow total and we got a bit above average--that should of done alot better. I dont think it was temp related. I think most storms where NYC got crushed and we got nothing was Miller B's. Unless it’s a Miller B....usually we are in the same game as NYC. We cant do much about Miller Bs..its pretty much based on luck of your location lol---and not really climate change

You bring up a legit hypothesis and I can’t say for sure. But a counter point…it was a bit of both.  There were some storms during that period where temps did limit snowfall.  Several storms in 2001 that hit NYC did give DC appreciable precip but we’re too warm. Dec 2003, Feb 2006, Feb 2007, March 2007, Jan 2008, Jan 2011, Dec 2012, March 2013, all featured storms that would have been more significant in DC if it was a few degrees colder and that’s why NYC got way more snow. 
 

But yes there were a lot of NS systems that just tracked to our north in that period. But is that actually uncommon or did we used to simply hit on more NS systems back when the mean NS was further south decades ago?   The “miller b” thing is overblown Imo. It’s not some weird thing. Or some travesty. We don’t get “jumped” it’s just that they track to our north and the snow west of us is upslope on the westerly flow hitting the 4500 ft mountains. A west flow here is downslope. But the actual synoptic precip from a pure NS wave simply goes north of us because the storm tracks too far north for our latitude 90% of the time.
 

Pure NS waves were never the best here but when I was doing that case study if all warning events at BWI I noticed what seemed a lot more of them back in the 50s, 60s and 70s than recently.  If we went from a 30% hit rate to a 15% that makes a huge difference. I don’t know though. That would be a headache to quantify. 

[Terpeast]

56 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

@Heisy something I have been keeping an eye on, and it likely doesn't matter for snow now since its so late...but it would most definitely matter if this was still winter... over the last 2 weeks, and it happens again in a few days which is what kills that hail mary threat you were peeking at...even when the pac jet extends and gets the ridge into the EPO domain...even rolling it into western Canada at times...it can't do much to the SER.  The energy just cuts off under it and dives into the SW anyways.  At times the SER gets beat down as a system crashes over top if it, but it immediately reloads.  That would NEVER work for us because its not the wave that beats down the SER that is a threat for us...it would be a wave AFTER.  If nothing can squash it for more than a day or two there is no legit threat.   Look at the evolution the next 7 days...even with the pac ridge rolling into Canada and a beautiful west NAO block...the SER can't be suppressed much.  I was curious so I looked at the pattern analogs.  And sure enough almost all of them have way less SER than the guidance shows now.  Why would that be.... simple...because everything else about the pattern says there SHOULDNT BE A SER...so when the model looks for analogs the only way to get as strong  SER would be to have things different in every other way and so it would be a way worse match overall than simply picking the analogs where everything else is similar but with less SER.  I noted this a couple other times recently...where the analogs were also saying basically "why is there such a strong SER".   I wish this would be more discussion...instead of simply chalking the SER up to the pac pattern...discuss why is the SER so much stronger than history says it should be at times...including the pac pattern into that equation.  

We still have a strong and broad aleutian ridge, and I think even though the nina is dead, it will take a while to flush the entire NH pattern out, including the SER. 

Now if we get a SER popping back up in the middle of a moderate-strong nino in October, then I will definitely be much more alarmed. 

[psuhoffman]

40 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

We still have a strong and broad aleutian ridge, and I think even though the nina is dead, it will take a while to flush the entire NH pattern out, including the SER. 

Now if we get a SER popping back up in the middle of a moderate-strong nino in October, then I will definitely be much more alarmed. 

Except a Nino does not = constant huge SER. Actually if you look at the mean of all ninos there is only a very minor SER signature. This isn’t as simple as just “Nino” imo. 

[stormy]

57 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

We still have a strong and broad aleutian ridge, and I think even though the nina is dead, it will take a while to flush the entire NH pattern out, including the SER. 

Now if we get a SER popping back up in the middle of a moderate-strong nino in October, then I will definitely be much more alarmed. 

I agree with you 100%. I have been attributing my observed propensity for a prominent SER to a Nina state for nearly 3 years. I will be alarmed if a Nino allows a prominent SER next winter!

I despise Nina's because they usually result in below normal rainfall for my area. 2021 was over 11 inches below normal. 2022 was only 1 inch below normal but we had precip. suppression during the winter when potential snow producing systems approached.

The answer to our mystery is being able to accurately identify why the SER is so prominent in today's world.

[Terpeast]

36 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Except a Nino does not = constant huge SER. Actually if you look at the mean of all ninos there is only a very minor SER signature. This isn’t as simple as just “Nino” imo. 

I think you meant nina, not nino. But I get the idea. 

My point is that I’m not yet fully convinced that the SER is a cause rather than an effect of some other forcing (likely pac driven - in fluid dynamics, most of the time, you have to look upstream for a cause). 

But if the SER persists with a totally different pac, qbo, iod, enso phase, then I would have to really consider it as a cause - a new forcing - not as an effect of a known forcing.

[WesternFringe]

On 3/21/2023 at 1:53 PM, Terpeast said:

Safe to say he's not gonna take the bait.

It was not really bait as much as it was a comeuppance.  He talked a lot of trash about not getting any snow in March and specifically mentioned me to rub it in, one of the only posters on here that just had a 12hr+ snowstorm. He talked a lot of shit and when I called him on it, he disappeared and ran away.  He deserved my response and the fact he didn’t respond is telling.

[psuhoffman]

41 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

I think you meant nina, not nino. But I get the idea. 

My point is that I’m not yet fully convinced that the SER is a cause rather than an effect of some other forcing (likely pac driven - in fluid dynamics, most of the time, you have to look upstream for a cause). 

But if the SER persists with a totally different pac, qbo, iod, enso phase, then I would have to really consider it as a cause - a new forcing - not as an effect of a known forcing.

Yes I meant Nina. I’m not strongly inclined to say the SER is a cause but I’m also not sure it’s wholly an enso effect. I’ve noticed a disconnect between the high latitude and mid latitude pattern lately. The mid latitude impacts could still be pac driven but it’s not just a typical Nina thing is all I’m saying. 

[Ji]

You bring up a legit hypothesis and I can’t say for sure. But a counter point…it was a bit of both.  There were some storms during that period where temps did limit snowfall.  Several storms in 2001 that hit NYC did give DC appreciable precip but we’re too warm. Dec 2003, Feb 2006, Feb 2007, March 2007, Jan 2008, Jan 2011, Dec 2012, March 2013, all featured storms that would have been more significant in DC if it was a few degrees colder and that’s why NYC got way more snow. 
 
But yes there were a lot of NS systems that just tracked to our north in that period. But is that actually uncommon or did we used to simply hit on more NS systems back when the mean NS was further south decades ago?   The “miller b” thing is overblown Imo. It’s not some weird thing. Or some travesty. We don’t get “jumped” it’s just that they track to our north and the snow west of us is upslope on the westerly flow hitting the 4500 ft mountains. A west flow here is downslope. But the actual synoptic precip from a pure NS wave simply goes north of us because the storm tracks too far north for our latitude 90% of the time.
 
Pure NS waves were never the best here but when I was doing that case study if all warning events at BWI I noticed what seemed a lot more of them back in the 50s, 60s and 70s than recently.  If we went from a 30% hit rate to a 15% that makes a huge difference. I don’t know though. That would be a headache to quantify. 

I don’t memorize stuff like you but we got plenty of snow dec 2003…Feb 06…07 was historic but sleet…Jan 2011 March 2013…the others I don’t remember

[Daniel Boone]

5 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

You bring up a legit hypothesis and I can’t say for sure. But a counter point…it was a bit of both.  There were some storms during that period where temps did limit snowfall.  Several storms in 2001 that hit NYC did give DC appreciable precip but we’re too warm. Dec 2003, Feb 2006, Feb 2007, March 2007, Jan 2008, Jan 2011, Dec 2012, March 2013, all featured storms that would have been more significant in DC if it was a few degrees colder and that’s why NYC got way more snow. 
 

But yes there were a lot of NS systems that just tracked to our north in that period. But is that actually uncommon or did we used to simply hit on more NS systems back when the mean NS was further south decades ago?   The “miller b” thing is overblown Imo. It’s not some weird thing. Or some travesty. We don’t get “jumped” it’s just that they track to our north and the snow west of us is upslope on the westerly flow hitting the 4500 ft mountains. A west flow here is downslope. But the actual synoptic precip from a pure NS wave simply goes north of us because the storm tracks too far north for our latitude 90% of the time.
 

Pure NS waves were never the best here but when I was doing that case study if all warning events at BWI I noticed what seemed a lot more of them back in the 50s, 60s and 70s than recently.  If we went from a 30% hit rate to a 15% that makes a huge difference. I don’t know though. That would be a headache to quantify. 

Yeah, it does appear NS Systems are not diving as far south overall as they did back in the day.  There's been some fluke , throw back years (i.e,95-96) that Miller B's and Clippers dove well South but, not many. 

[Maestrobjwa]

11 minutes ago, Daniel Boone said:

Yeah, it does appear NS Systems are not diving as far south overall as they did back in the day.  There's been some fluke , throw back years (i.e,95-96) that Miller B's and Clippers dove well South but, not many. 

What's pushing them north then? Warmer climo or something else?

[Daniel Boone]

7 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

What's pushing them north then? Warmer climo or something else?

Probably a combination of that plus other factors like the warm western Atlantic SST'S and possibly some fairly unknown driver's as Terp alluded to. The SER dominance and occasional NAO block hookup for instance used to be rare. If this continues during Nino then we can speculate, research and see what we can come up with as far as cause and maybe get a clearer picture.

     The warmer climo would play a part as far as the NS diving as the deeper the cold up north the more the press as we know. Also, the PNA Height of course. Even with that, the SER seems to still want to block anymore it seems. 

[nj2va]

Looks good!

[Terpeast]

44 minutes ago, Daniel Boone said:

Yeah, it does appear NS Systems are not diving as far south overall as they did back in the day.  There's been some fluke , throw back years (i.e,95-96) that Miller B's and Clippers dove well South but, not many. 

If I remember correctly, the Jan 96 storm was a NSer that dove from canada far enough south to become a miller A monster. And that was technically during a weak-mod nina. It was a very cold storm, too. 

[Terpeast]

And, this is just a bit of speculation (mods, feel free to move this if warranted)… have you observed less separation between NS and SS?

With the hadley cell expansion (if that’s indeed happening), are these two streams increasingly being squeezed together to produce just one dominant stream instead of two separate ones? Or am I going too far out on a limb?

[pazzo83]

28 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

And, this is just a bit of speculation (mods, feel free to move this if warranted)… have you observed less separation between NS and SS?

With the hadley cell expansion (if that’s indeed happening), are these two streams increasingly being squeezed together to produce just one dominant stream instead of two separate ones? Or am I going too far out on a limb?

If that were happening, what effect would that have on the weather we experience?

[Terpeast]

9 hours ago, pazzo83 said:

If that were happening, what effect would that have on the weather we experience?

Would have to be modeled to see, but my hypothesis would be a faster jet stream with stronger storms.

[Daniel Boone]

12 hours ago, Terpeast said:

If I remember correctly, the Jan 96 storm was a NSer that dove from canada far enough south to become a miller A monster. And that was technically during a weak-mod nina. It was a very cold storm, too. 

Yep. Sure sure was and did . 

[Daniel Boone]

12 hours ago, Terpeast said:

And, this is just a bit of speculation (mods, feel free to move this if warranted)… have you observed less separation between NS and SS?

With the hadley cell expansion (if that’s indeed happening), are these two streams increasingly being squeezed together to produce just one dominant stream instead of two separate ones? Or am I going too far out on a limb?

You know, you have a good point there as it does appear to be moving that way. Some odd but, interesting things going on for sure. 

[fujiwara79]

14 hours ago, Maestrobjwa said:

What's pushing them north then? Warmer climo or something else?

Yes, warmer climo has pushed the baroclinic zone north.  Look at Canada.  In the past few decades it's been warmer and snowier up there, pretty much throughout the entire country.

Who knows, maybe one day the baroclinic zone moves all the way to the arctic circle.  Unless the supposed natural cycle reversal that I've been told is imminent for the past 15 years actually happens.    

[paulythegun]

5% chance!

[cbmclean]

On 3/23/2023 at 3:51 PM, psuhoffman said:

I wish this would be more discussion...instead of simply chalking the SER up to the pac pattern...discuss why is the SER so much stronger than history says it should be at times...including the pac pattern into that equation. 

I'm not sure that there is really much to discuss at the moment.  The clear leading hypothesis is that the gradually warming base state has hit a "tipping point" with a dynamic response that just happens to be associated with increased SER/WAR.  The exact mechanism(s) of the coupling are unclear but could include overly warm waters in the Gulf/West Atlantic, the Pacific warm pool, the expanding Hadley cell, some combination of all three, or maybe something completely different.  Deciphering it all could take years or maybe a decade or more as we observe the new responses through various ENSO/PDO states.  Until then, all we can do is hope some mitigating natural trends weigh in our favor.  

Or else we could all chip in to purchase a ship that just sails around the midlatitudes spewing sulfur particulates into the air.

[Ji]

On 3/23/2023 at 12:04 PM, Heisy said:

I knew it was Bs last night, but it’s really annoying we couldn’t catch one break all year…




.

LOL gfs

 

[psuhoffman]

On 3/23/2023 at 9:05 PM, Ji said:

I don’t memorize stuff like you but we got plenty of snow dec 2003…Feb 06…07 was historic but sleet…Jan 2011 March 2013…the others I don’t remember

Yes we got plenty of snow during that era but remember while we did "ok" during that period...our average actually was close to historical norms during the 2000-2016 period... the problem is we needed to do VERY GOOD because that was actually what should have been an extremely snowy period if you look at the predominant phases of the PDO and NAO during that time period.  Look at the mean h5 northern hemisphere pattern.

We had an extended period where the Pacific, high latitudes, and Atlantic patterns all were in a favorable phase at the same time!  Yet all we did was average what was historically a normal amount of snow over that period.  And places not far to our north did experience one of their snowiest periods, on par with the 1960s.  Yet we did not.  Unless you accept that there is a new normal and that Dulles averaging 23" (which they did from 2000-2016) is now extremely snowy for our area.  Yet when I moved to northern VA in 1994 23" was what IAD's normal snowfall was.  Since 2016 Dulles has averaged 10.9" of snow.  Yes we are in a down cycle now, the high latitudes are still OK overall but the pacific has entered a long term hostile cycle.  And guess what...we are also doing worse than past previous comparable periods where the pacific was equally hostile.  My point is, in my opinion, we also were doing worse than we should have from 2000 to 2016 only it wasn't getting much attention because we were doing fine wrt snowfall...but the fact is we should have been doing way better than fine...that was the up period and all we got our of it was what should have been normal mid range snowfall.  Now we are in a legit bad period and its really dreadfully awful even by bad cycle standards.  

So yes you are right many of those storms did produce a decent amount of snow.  But we needed MORE than decent during that period if that was the "snowy" cycle to maintain what we used to consider "normal" climo here.  We needed that storm in January 2011 to be 20" plus like it was to our north not 6-10" of slop.   We needed some of those northern stream system to dig a little more.  I can't quantify exactly which storms were caused by what...just saying that we had a 17 year period with an extremely favorable pattern in every way, and places to our north set record snowfall on par or even surpassing the 1960's period...and all we got out of it was what we considered "normal" snowfall.  That seems like a problem to me.  

[Ji]

26 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Yes we got plenty of snow during that era but remember while we did "ok" during that period...our average actually was close to historical norms during the 2000-2016 period... the problem is we needed to do VERY GOOD because that was actually what should have been an extremely snowy period if you look at the predominant phases of the PDO and NAO during that time period.  Look at the mean h5 northern hemisphere pattern.

We had an extended period where the Pacific, high latitudes, and Atlantic patterns all were in a favorable phase at the same time!  Yet all we did was average what was historically a normal amount of snow over that period.  And places not far to our north did experience one of their snowiest periods, on par with the 1960s.  Yet we did not.  Unless you accept that there is a new normal and that Dulles averaging 23" (which they did from 2000-2016) is now extremely snowy for our area.  Yet when I moved to northern VA in 1994 23" was what IAD's normal snowfall was.  Since 2016 Dulles has averaged 10.9" of snow.  Yes we are in a down cycle now, the high latitudes are still OK overall but the pacific has entered a long term hostile cycle.  And guess what...we are also doing worse than past previous comparable periods where the pacific was equally hostile.  My point is, in my opinion, we also were doing worse than we should have from 2000 to 2016 only it wasn't getting much attention because we were doing fine wrt snowfall...but the fact is we should have been doing way better than fine...that was the up period and all we got our of it was what should have been normal mid range snowfall.  Now we are in a legit bad period and its really dreadfully awful even by bad cycle standards.  

So yes you are right many of those storms did produce a decent amount of snow.  But we needed MORE than decent during that period if that was the "snowy" cycle to maintain what we used to consider "normal" climo here.  We needed that storm in January 2011 to be 20" plus like it was to our north not 6-10" of slop.   We needed some of those northern stream system to dig a little more.  I can't quantify exactly which storms were caused by what...just saying that we had a 17 year period with an extremely favorable pattern in every way, and places to our north set record snowfall on par or even surpassing the 1960's period...and all we got out of it was what we considered "normal" snowfall.  That seems like a problem to me.  

Oooof---you right but i i think really 80% of it was our location and not us lacking the cold air. Cyclones usually dont bomb till they are past our latitude...NYC has more time for a storm to phase or get captured...unless we have a 995 on the GULF coast with a big arctic high...our geography is usually going to kill us more than temps. Those early 2000s felt like we were always in the game but as this link shows...Central park was getting in the 40's--50s..while we were getting 15-25.

https://www.weather.gov/media/okx/Climate/CentralPark/monthlyseasonalsnowfall.pdf

[Ji]

this was a ridiculous stretch for central Park i think thanks mostly to Miller B's

2000-01 0 0 0 T 0 13.4 8.3 9.5 3.8 0 0 0 35.0

2001-02 0 0 0 0 0 T 3.5 T T T 0 0 3.5

2002-03 0 0 0 T T 11.0 4.7 26.1 3.5 4.0 0 0 49.3

2003-04 0 0 0 0 0 19.8 17.3 0.7 4.8 0 0 0 42.6

2004-05 0 0 0 0 T 3.0 15.3 15.8 6.9 0 0 0 41.0

2005-06 0 0 0 0 T 9.7 2.0 26.9 1.3 0.1 0 0 40.0

 

this one stands out the most...again Miller B"

 

2010-11 0 0 0 0 T 20.1 36.0 4.8 1.0 T 0 0 61.9

 

here was another Miller B event 

2020-21 0 0 0 0 0 10.5 2.1 26.0 T 0 38.6