December Mid/Long Range Discussion

[psuhoffman]

2 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

seems to be a slower progression. modeling underdid how strong the Pacific jet would get since they underestimated the +EAMT event. they corrected, and they still look good once the jet retracts. it's just backed up a bit. wouldn't worry too much about it

also, given how weak the SPV is going to get (could even see a SSW), we should see more blocking, especially late Jan into Feb

The latest gefs never flips the nao negative. The latest eps is slightly better by mid January but it’s not nearly as pronounced as just a few days ago. I’m not making any prediction but I’m also not seeing what you’re seeing.  

[WinterWxLuvr]

4 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

seems to be a slower progression. modeling underdid how strong the Pacific jet would get since they underestimated the +EAMT event. they corrected, and they still look good once the jet retracts. it's just backed up a bit. wouldn't worry too much about it

also, given how weak the SPV is going to get (could even see a SSW), we should see more blocking, especially late Jan into Feb

 

5 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

You could even argue the pac side looks slightly better…the problem is the flip to a -nao keeps getting delayed. 

I would think those could also be the result of a few members not having the great look, less consensus, more confusion and thus a slightly more zonal looking flow. Those looks aren’t all that different, just a little flatter.

[osfan24]

4 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

seems to be a slower progression. modeling underdid how strong the Pacific jet would get since they underestimated the +EAMT event. they corrected, and they still look good once the jet retracts. it's just backed up a bit. wouldn't worry too much about it

also, given how weak the SPV is going to get (could even see a SSW), we should see more blocking, especially late Jan into Feb

LOL, so now we are can-kicking almost all of January? 

[brooklynwx99]

1 minute ago, osfan24 said:

LOL, so now we are can-kicking almost all of January? 

that isn't what i said. the jet retraction should allow for a more favorable pattern into early-mid Jan

[Terpeast]

Just now, osfan24 said:

LOL, so now we are can-kicking almost all of January? 

I wouldn’t say that just yet. January is still 3 weeks away, and a lot can change between now and then. 

But what I will say is if by the time we’re still looking for a good pattern by Jan 15 on the models, we cannot afford another can kick then. 

[brooklynwx99]

4 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

The latest gefs never flips the nao negative. The latest eps is slightly better by mid January but it’s not nearly as pronounced as just a few days ago. I’m not making any prediction but I’m also not seeing what you’re seeing.  

they aren't far out enough to see any significant blocking that would result from any kind of SSW. that would wait until late Jan and I don't think anything really goes out that far. the Pacific should improve handily once into the first or second week of Jan

also, Ninos often have in-situ blocking from wave breaks that extended guidance has no chance of picking up on. that's how we got that first blocking spell earlier this month

[psuhoffman]

3 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

 

I would think those could also be the result of a few members not having the great look, less consensus, more confusion and thus a slightly more zonal looking flow. Those looks aren’t all that different, just a little flatter.

They aren’t THAT different. The problem is snow is an anomaly here. Absent just getting lucky it usually takes a good look not just a blah one. So seeing a good look degrade to just ok could be the difference between snow and no. 

[psuhoffman]

3 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

I wouldn’t say that just yet. January is still 3 weeks away, and a lot can change between now and then. 

But what I will say is if by the time we’re still looking for a good pattern by Jan 15 on the models, we cannot afford another can kick then. 

I think it’s sooner than that.  I looked at all those “late flipping snowy Nino years” and in all of them the inception of what happened later was very evident by early January. In some cases the snow might have taken longer, often because it took weeks for a colder profile to establish once the pattern flipped…but if we get to New Years and guidance shows the nao is still positive and the pac is torching the continent history says it’s game over for our chances of a good winter. At that point we have to shift to looking to get lucky with 1 or 2 storms like 1995 or maybe if we get really lucky 1983. 

[WinterWxLuvr]

4 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

They aren’t THAT different. The problem is snow is an anomaly here. Absent just getting lucky it usually takes a good look not just a blah one. So seeing a good look degrade to just ok could be the difference between snow and no. 

Not what I was saying. It’s an ensemble run. It’s a blend and that blend might look more zonal because of the battle between the food look you’re talking about and the not so good looks. Besides, how reliable are these in the first place. More than an op but still susceptible to swings.

[Ji]

1 minute ago, psuhoffman said:

I think it’s sooner than that.  I looked at all those “late flipping snowy Nino years” and in all of them the inception of what happened later was very evident by early January. In some cases the snow might have taken longer, often because it took weeks for a colder profile to establish once the pattern flipped…but if we get to New Years and guidance shows the nao is still positive and the pac is torching the continent history says it’s game over for our chances of a good winter. At that point we have to shift to looking to get lucky with 1 or 2 storms like 1995 or maybe if we get really lucky 1983. 

that -NAO in late November/Early December kind of came out of nowhere right? It wasnt really modeled weeks in advance

[Ji]

I dont know how we recover from this. You cant ask for a better Noreaster in the winter

[Terpeast]

18 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I think it’s sooner than that.  I looked at all those “late flipping snowy Nino years” and in all of them the inception of what happened later was very evident by early January. In some cases the snow might have taken longer, often because it took weeks for a colder profile to establish once the pattern flipped…but if we get to New Years and guidance shows the nao is still positive and the pac is torching the continent history says it’s game over for our chances of a good winter. At that point we have to shift to looking to get lucky with 1 or 2 storms like 1995 or maybe if we get really lucky 1983. 

Its roughly 2 weeks out when guidance hones in on the overall pattern, right?

So we get to New Years, look at the guidance, and there's no sign of a better pattern, or a transition to a better one, two weeks out... that takes us to roughly Jan 15 with nothing on the horizon. That's when I'll start getting worried.

[clskinsfan]

It seems to be that the new norm is all of the cold air being trapped on the wrong side of the hemisphere for us. This is like 5 winters in a row at this point. Historic cold in Siberia. It is getting old.

[osfan24]

We don't even need it to be that cold. We just need seasonable when it comes to January and February. Give us seasonable with precipitation and a low with decent strength and that's plenty to give us snow.

[clskinsfan]

8 minutes ago, osfan24 said:

We don't even need it to be that cold. We just need seasonable when it comes to January and February. Give us seasonable with precipitation and a low with decent strength and that's plenty to give us snow.

No one even knows what "seasonable" means anymore. That is the problem. 

[87storms]

Is this the panic room? lol

One thing I've noticed looking at some of the maps (like that nor'easter) is the cold air is occurring more so in "pockets" as opposed to long-drawn out cold snaps.  It certainly makes it more difficult to time a storm and it probably allows for more of those inland tracks as well.  Another thing I've noticed is that we haven't really had a bitter cold snap yet.  It's still early for that, but even in the heart of winter we usually need an arctic high (for a flush hit snowfall).

[psuhoffman]

1 hour ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

Not what I was saying. It’s an ensemble run. It’s a blend and that blend might look more zonal because of the battle between the food look you’re talking about and the not so good looks. Besides, how reliable are these in the first place. More than an op but still susceptible to swings.

These are all very good points. But going from a super majority consensus to a split camp scenario which seems to be what you’re implying, is still a move in the wrong direction. And no they aren’t super reliable. Frankly they suck at those ranges. But we were noting when they looked great. I’m simply noting when they don’t.  Is it some super awful sign no, but it’s also not a good thing to see guidance move the wrong direction.  
 

I’m frankly a little surprised by the pushback the last two times I simply made an objective observation/analysis of what the guidance showed.  I didn’t make any predictions at all. Actually I’m in record with above normal snow and said I’m sticking to that for now. No one pushed back a couple weeks ago when I observed how the same exact guidance I’m pointing to now looked great. No one had arguments why it didn’t look great or why it wasn’t with looking at. It was just a bunch of likes. Now I do the exact same thing, the only difference is the guidance isn’t so awesome and it’s a bunch of “but this that ie the other” arguments. 

[87storms]

32 minutes ago, osfan24 said:

We don't even need it to be that cold. We just need seasonable when it comes to January and February. Give us seasonable with precipitation and a low with decent strength and that's plenty to give us snow.

Yea, but what's seasonable now?  Our best setups for a start to finish snowfall is when we have a sprawling cold high to the north/west or a residual arctic high/cad setup.  We're seeing high pressures to the north, but they're quick hitters.  I guess we need sustained blocking (ie, sustained radiational cooling) up top to allow Canada to get cold enough.  It makes sense that a less than ideal Pacific/PNA would make that more challenging than in decades past.

[psuhoffman]

1 hour ago, Ji said:

that -NAO in late November/Early December kind of came out of nowhere right? It wasnt really modeled weeks in advance

Correct. Which is why I’m not overly concerned with these extended products. This isn’t me making one of those “we’re F’d it’s over” posts. This is purely an observation of trends on guidance. 

[Maestrobjwa]

4 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

These are all very good points. But going from a super majority consensus to a split camp scenario which seems to be what you’re implying, is still a move in the wrong direction. And no they aren’t super reliable. Frankly they suck at those ranges. But we were noting when they looked great. I’m simply noting when they don’t.  Is it some super awful sign no, but it’s also not a good thing to see guidance move the wrong direction.  
 

I’m frankly a little surprised by the pushback the last two times I simply made an objective observation/analysis of what the guidance showed.  I didn’t make any predictions at all. Actually I’m in record with above normal snow and said I’m sticking to that for now. No one pushed back a couple weeks ago when I observed how the same exact guidance I’m pointing to now looked great. No one had arguments why it didn’t look great or why it wasn’t with looking at. It was just a bunch of likes. Now I do the exact same thing, the only difference is the guidance isn’t so awesome and it’s a bunch of “but this that ie the other” arguments. 

Have you ever considered the psychological side of this? Good news leads to good feelings, bad news leads to bad. So of course someone is gonna try to dig for a positive in hopes it means the news is not so bad (even if said digging leads to more of reach) So it's not exactly against you...just against the news itself, lol I wouldn't take that personally...people just have their reactions to even the most objective bad news.

[psuhoffman]

54 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

Its roughly 2 weeks out when guidance hones in on the overall pattern, right?

So we get to New Years, look at the guidance, and there's no sign of a better pattern, or a transition to a better one, two weeks out... that takes us to roughly Jan 15 with nothing on the horizon. That's when I'll start getting worried.

Yea I agree with this. If we get to New Years and the better looks aren’t inside 2 weeks we’re in big trouble.  For now we wait. 

[WhiteoutMD]

50 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

It seems to be that the new norm is all of the cold air being trapped on the wrong side of the hemisphere for us. This is like 5 winters in a row at this point. Historic cold in Siberia. It is getting old.

Agree yes we have had cold shot like last Christmas but the trend has been what you said.

[SnowenOutThere]

15 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I’m frankly a little surprised by the pushback the last two times I simply made an objective observation/analysis of what the guidance showed.  I didn’t make any predictions at all. Actually I’m in record with above normal snow and said I’m sticking to that for now. No one pushed back a couple weeks ago when I observed how the same exact guidance I’m pointing to now looked great. No one had arguments why it didn’t look great or why it wasn’t with looking at. It was just a bunch of likes. Now I do the exact same thing, the only difference is the guidance isn’t so awesome and it’s a bunch of “but this that ie the other” arguments. 

Please continue to make these posts, its annoying how when models move away from good solutions we suddenly switch to trying to ignore them instead of constantly post how good they look. Its nice to have an update as someone who isn't quite on the same analysis level of smarter posters, even if its not what we want to hear. 

[olafminesaw]

FWIW after delaying the transition to phase 8 of the MJO the past couple days, the most recent GEFS run sped up and gets us to phase 8 around Christmas. It would be hard to imagine that if this plays out we wouldn't see a marked improvement to the pattern.

[psuhoffman]

1 hour ago, clskinsfan said:

It seems to be that the new norm is all of the cold air being trapped on the wrong side of the hemisphere for us. This is like 5 winters in a row at this point. Historic cold in Siberia. It is getting old.

They aren’t downwind of the raging pacific jet so…. Just pointing out it’s not a random fluke this keeps happening. It’s all related. 

[mattie g]

3 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

They aren’t downwind of the raging pacific jet so…. Just pointing out it’s not a random fluke this keeps happening. It’s all related. 

No doubt being upstream from the Pacific "helps" Siberia, but are you suggesting that if there weren't a raging Pacific jet then the cold locked up there would somehow be released/shared?

[psuhoffman]

36 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

Have you ever considered the psychological side of this? Good news leads to good feelings, bad news leads to bad. So of course someone is gonna try to dig for a positive in hopes it means the news is not so bad (even if said digging leads to more of reach) So it's not exactly against you...just against the news itself, lol I wouldn't take that personally...people just have their reactions to even the most objective bad news.

No because the weather doesn’t care how we feel about it!  I approach this purely scientifically. I want it to snow. I love snow. I’ll be disappointed if this year fails. Even more so because I’ll bust and I put work into my forecasts.  But the weather cares not about any of that and when you look to confirm what you want it leads to bad analysis and bad results. That is true of any scientific study or process.  But we’ve been on here together long enough for people to know I love snow. I’m not some warminista troll who gets off on dashing the hopes and dreams of snow weenies. When it’s actually snowy I weenie out with the rest of you!  My analysis has been so bad for snow lately simply because….the reality has  been mostly utter crap for snow going on 7 years now. But that’s not my preference or my fault. 

[psuhoffman]

5 minutes ago, mattie g said:

No doubt being upstream from the Pacific "helps" Siberia, but are you suggesting that if there weren't a raging Pacific jet then the cold locked up there would somehow be released/shared?

Yes, you can’t get cross polar flow when a raging pac jet is blasting across North America. 
ETA: and you can’t even generate home grown domestic cold when pac maritime air is being blasted across by a record pac jet. It’s all related.  

 Add in that it’s just simply warmer overall and this is a bad combo  

What isn’t totally known is how much of the pac issue is a temporary cycle and how much is permanent due to warming. 
 

I think it’s a bit of both. We are in a hostile cyclical pdo regime. But the expansion of the pacific circulation and the western pac warm pool have both been linked to warming and both are making the PDO program a lot worse. 

[stormy]

7 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

They aren’t downwind of the raging pacific jet so…. Just pointing out it’s not a random fluke this keeps happening. It’s all related. 

Do you know how long this "raging pacific jet" has been a problem ?

Is it more likely to occur today than 20 years ago or 40 years ago ?

How about the 1960"s ?

[psuhoffman]

1 minute ago, stormy said:

Do you know how long this "raging pacific jet" has been a problem ?

Is it more likely to occur today than 20 years ago or 40 years ago ?

How about the 1960"s ?

See my last post above