Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,609
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

2023-2024 Winter/ENSO Disco


40/70 Benchmark
 Share

Recommended Posts

You can't go by those. It's hard enough to predict temps, N/M snowfall.

 

You've probably heard Will and myself talk about the H5 anomalies. Those IMO are the "best" idea to get a feel for what may occur. Temps and snowfall will come out from that. But of course, predicting H5 anomalies is not easy too. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

You can't go by those. It's hard enough to predict temps, N/M snowfall.

 

You've probably heard Will and myself talk about the H5 anomalies. Those IMO are the "best" idea to get a feel for what may occur. Temps and snowfall will come out from that. But of course, predicting H5 anomalies is not easy too. 

I've never been a fan of snowfall predictions in seasonal outlooks. IMO, something such as snowfall or even precipitation isn't necessarily tied into the pattern, but more so deviations which happen during pattern evolutions. When you look at seasonal snowfall totals and compare to ENSO, NAO, AO, etc., sure you may see some "correlation" but the correlations aren't very strong in that the spread is still relatively high. 

While a pattern such as WC ridge and EC trough can be associated with increased snow chances, that doesn't necessarily mean it is going to happen or will occur (which I think everyone understands). I think what's more important is how the pattern is evolving which is very tough to create in composites. You can create H5 anomalies for snowiest and least snowiest winters and certainly draw a quick correlation, however, what that won't tell you is how things evolved leading up to the event. That is more important than just WC ridge/EC trough in the composite.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

I've never been a fan of snowfall predictions in seasonal outlooks. IMO, something such as snowfall or even precipitation isn't necessarily tied into the pattern, but more so deviations which happen during pattern evolutions. When you look at seasonal snowfall totals and compare to ENSO, NAO, AO, etc., sure you may see some "correlation" but the correlations aren't very strong in that the spread is still relatively high. 

While a pattern such as WC ridge and EC trough can be associated with increased snow chances, that doesn't necessarily mean it is going to happen or will occur (which I think everyone understands). I think what's more important is how the pattern is evolving which is very tough to create in composites. You can create H5 anomalies for snowiest and least snowiest winters and certainly draw a quick correlation, however, what that won't tell you is how things evolved leading up to the event. That is more important than just WC ridge/EC trough in the composite.

Its both...think of it like the loaded dice analogy to describe GW in that the we have greater potential for warmer outcomes. The pattern does that with respect to snowfall, but it doesn't mean it never deviates....just like we still have colder seasons despite the background signal of GW.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Its both...think of it like the loaded dice analogy to describe GW in that the we have greater potential for warmer outcomes. The pattern does that with respect to snowfall, but its doesn't mean it never deviates....just like we still have colder seasons despite the background signal of GW.

Agreed - good point. 

I really wish we had a great dataset of like near-miss events. I know the KU books has some cases on these but having such a dataset I think would expand skill set significantly. Of course, there would have to be some definitions to define "near misses". I mean the GFS or CMC or some random model from someone's basement showing a blizzard 10 days out which doesn't verify does not count as a "near miss". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, weatherwiz said:

Agreed - good point. 

I really wish we had a great dataset of like near-miss events. I know the KU books has some cases on these but having such a dataset I think would expand skill set significantly. Of course, there would have to be some definitions to define "near misses". I mean the GFS or CMC or some random model from someone's basement showing a blizzard 10 days out which doesn't verify does not count as a "near miss". 

That’s going to be a lot of work and take a lot of resources. Near misses can happen both ways - cutters or suppressed waves. And a near miss for SNE can be a direct hit on the MA, and so forth. Not saying it can be done, just that it would need academic research plus reanalysis modeling. Minimum months, likely years of work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

That’s going to be a lot of work and take a lot of resources. Near misses can happen both ways - cutters or suppressed waves. And a near miss for SNE can be a direct hit on the MA, and so forth. Not saying it can be done, just that it would need academic research plus reanalysis modeling. Minimum months, likely years of work. 

Yeah the amount of resources and work would be very large and quite complex. Way above anything my noggin can do :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...