December Mid/Long Range Discussion

[Maestrobjwa]

4 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

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. 

You're right. And to be clear, please do not take this as me saying "Oh please don't deliver bad news!" or that purely scientific analysis should be held back to preserve feelings, or that personal preference should interfere with good analysis. That's not what I meant.

You've been expressing that you didn't understand why you were getting pushback, right? When I said "consider the psychological side", I was responding to your slight surprise/bewilderment about the reaction people have, I gave my theory on why that is...I'm not at all suggesting you quit making good analysis just because it's bad news. I was just explaining what I saw as the reason why people were reacting to it, sometimes in a not-so-scientific way. Doesn't make the reactions scientifically sound...lol I'm a very big "why" person when it comes to people's reactions, because often times the problem lies within, than with whoever is posting good analysis like you do.

[psuhoffman]

7 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

You're right. And to be clear, please do not take this as me saying "Oh please don't deliver bad news!" or that purely scientific analysis should be held back to preserve feelings, or that personal preference should interfere with good analysis. That's not what I meant.

You've been expressing that you didn't understand why you were getting pushback, right? When I said "consider the psychological side", I eas responding to your slight surprise/,bewilderment about the reaction people have, I gave my theory on why that is...I'm not at all suggesting you quit making good analysis just because it's bad news. I was just explaining what I saw as the reason why people were reacting to it, sometimes in a not-so-scientific way. Doesn't make the reactions scientifically sound...lol I'm a very big "why" person when it comes to people's reactions, because often times the problem lies within, than with whoever is posting good analysis like you do.

You’re right. I was just explaining my processes not taking a shot at you. Sorry if it came off that way. 

[mattie g]

18 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

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. 

Gotcha. That makes sense now that you even quickly explain it.

[mattie g]

12 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

You're right. And to be clear, please do not take this as me saying "Oh please don't deliver bad news!" or that purely scientific analysis should be held back to preserve feelings, or that personal preference should interfere with good analysis. That's not what I meant.

You've been expressing that you didn't understand why you were getting pushback, right? When I said "consider the psychological side", I eas responding to your slight surprise/,bewilderment about the reaction people have, I gave my theory on why that is...I'm not at all suggesting you quit making good analysis just because it's bad news. I was just explaining what I saw as the reason why people were reacting to it, sometimes in a not-so-scientific way. Doesn't make the reactions scientifically sound...lol I'm a very big "why" person when it comes to people's reactions, because often times the problem lies within, than with whoever is posting good analysis like you do.

Very well said.

[WinterWxLuvr]

For clarity, my posts were not meant to be any type of pushback. I only attempted to give an alternative view of the model data we are getting. Personally I don’t put stock in anything past about 7 days. I have no idea what the weather might be doing as we near Christmas and beyond. I do know that weather can flip on a dime. See 1989. Imagine a flip right after New Years and about 10 weeks of just pure winter. We would all take it and it can happen.

[stormy]

GEM brings snow next Tuesday by a coastal that creates its own cold air.

[poolz1]

Monday is still changing.  Ji noted yesterday the possible interaction with a N stream piece that would offer cold enough air to support snow.  A long shot since the storm is on its exit as whatever cold is coming in.  But,  the 12z suite so far has introduced the idea that a secondary storm may form and have the time to interact.   I just keep thinking about how much the last storm changed on the models when we were in the 4-6 day timeframe.

[osfan24]

1 hour ago, 87storms said:

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).

No panic. We aren't even halfway through December yet. But concern? Sure. Did not expect a repeat of December 2009. Did not even expect much snow at all this month. I wanted to see the hype of the supposed great pattern continue to move up in time as time passed, and instead it's just doing a disappearing act. Like PSU said, it's concerning but fine for now, but we get to the turn of the year and we still don't see that pattern? Uh oh. Seems like more of the past however many crap winters where good patterns are just a mirage and keep getting kicked down the road until it's April.

[hstorm]

1 hour ago, 87storms said:

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.

Seasonable now is very close to what seasonable was 10 years ago.  

[Terpeast]

13 minutes ago, poolz1 said:

Monday is still changing.  Ji noted yesterday the possible interaction with a N stream piece that would offer cold enough air to support snow.  A long shot since the storm is on its exit as whatever cold is coming in.  But,  the 12z suite so far has introduced the idea that a secondary storm may form and have the time to interact.   I just keep thinking about how much the last storm changed on the models when we were in the 4-6 day timeframe.

Noticed the canadian showing this. No support from the other models, but worth keeping an eye on. 

This is a very long shot due to lack of cold air, but last time we had a "long shot with not enough cold air" it snowed here and most people got 1-2".

[Maestrobjwa]

26 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

You’re right. I was just explaining my processes not taking a shot at you. Sorry if it came off that way. 

No worries--all good  And btw if anyone doubts that you weenie out to snow just like most of us, all they need to do is look at the pics you shared yesterday  That was a montage I'd like to call "the snowlover's heart" because that was a perfect encapsulation of our love of this frozen water we love/obsess over so much 

[poolz1]

15 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

Noticed the canadian showing this. No support from the other models, but worth keeping an eye on. 

This is a very long shot due to lack of cold air, but last time we had a "long shot with not enough cold air" it snowed here and most people got 1-2".

No doubt a very long shot with this one.  But long shots are better than no shots especially with the LR look on the ens.  The ICON switched to this idea and the GFS to some extent as well.  Wait n see....

[North Balti Zen]

1 hour ago, SnowenOutThere said:

Please continue to make these posts, it’s 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. It’s nice to have an update as someone who isn't quite on the same analysis level of smarter posters, even if it’s not what we want to hear. 

Um. This board cannot credibly be accused of being optimistic. Ever. There are several posters who live to pull the worst 600 hour snapshot from the euro control to spread sadness.

[nj2va]

10 minutes ago, poolz1 said:

No doubt a very long shot with this one.  But long shots are better than no shots especially with the LR look on the ens.  The ICON switched to this idea and the GFS to some extent as well.  Wait n see....

This is why the overreactions and fly by shit posts of “I guess we’re punting through the end of January” not only do nothing for the thread, but we’ve seen things flip regularly on the models. 

[Ralph Wiggum]

53 minutes ago, stormy said:

GEM brings snow next Tuesday by a coastal that creates its own cold air.

Which is usually what we deal with during Ninos. Nino patterns aren't traditionally arctic bitter vodka cold. Take Jan 2016 for example....yes it was seasonal leading in but that storm we essentially sandwiched in between crud. It was in the 50s here the next day. I made a comment about 'windows' but that is real....we aren't going to deal with wall to wall cold and well-times storms. Thus is the Nino majority of the time. 

[cbmclean]

2 hours 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. 

If the opinion of a random SE weenie (who has latched on to this forum like a tick), makes any difference to you, I appreciate your unbiased and intellectually impartial analysis.  Please keep it coming.

[cbmclean]

1 hour ago, olafminesaw said:

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.

Honest question, does it "count" if it tunnels through the COD to get to phase 8?  Not used to seeing that.

[Terpeast]

2 minutes ago, cbmclean said:

Honest question, does it "count" if it tunnels through the COD to get to phase 8?  Not used to seeing that.

For us, 8 in COD or weak, is actually colder than a strong 8.

[psuhoffman]

5 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

For us, 8 in COD or weak, is actually colder than a strong 8.

I've seen the correlation chart and I know this is correct...but I've also seen some research suggesting the effect of one phase is linked to the passage of the MJO through a prior phase and what chain reaction that sets off.  For instance Phase 5/6/7 aren't cold, but I've seem some imply that forcing in those phases can set off a course of events that leads to high latitude ridging a week or two later...and that might be part of why 8/1 are cold not just because forcing in 8/1 is good.  So would 8/1 necessarily have the same impact if we get there without any passage through 6/7?  Does it even matter in a nino where the background base state should be ok absent any stronger MJO signal?  All good questions imo.  

ETA:  is it a coincidence that the NAO took a turn for the worse on the guidance about when the MJO wave started to die off instead of traversing 7 on that same guidance? 

[Kevin Reilly]

1 hour ago, stormy said:

GEM brings snow next Tuesday by a coastal that creates its own cold air.

yea not sure a 1006 mb low will create its own cold air looks more like the 994 up off of Southern New England is sending colder air SSW but I would think this is bogus because the atmosphere will be flooded by Atlantic Warmth time will tell to see if something develops though. 

[Ji]

I dont think the story is over on this noreaster.....or what this storm is going to be.

[Kevin Reilly]

1 minute ago, Ji said:

I dont think the story is over on this noreaster.....or what this storm is going to be.

Two things I like above:  1.  That's a pretty strong storm that far south 992!!  Move north a 992 should have no problem dragging down the cold air from the Great Lakes and western New England.  If that 992 moves NNE and develops along the way it could be a blockbuster.  I like this a lot!  No blocking high so it should just move.

[stormy]

1 hour ago, poolz1 said:

Monday is still changing.  Ji noted yesterday the possible interaction with a N stream piece that would offer cold enough air to support snow.  A long shot since the storm is on its exit as whatever cold is coming in.  But,  the 12z suite so far has introduced the idea that a secondary storm may form and have the time to interact.   I just keep thinking about how much the last storm changed on the models when we were in the 4-6 day timeframe.

I believe the only comment Ji made yesterday was the 12z 12-11 ECM pushing the storm out to sea with fresh cold air coming in from the northwest while we stay dry. This GEM idea is completely different with the eastern burbs of D.C. getting over 2 inches of rain before enough cold air is pulled down and into the system to transition lingering rain into snow.

Today's 12z ECM sniffs but kicks 2.0" rain back to .20" rain before pushing qp to the east as cold air moves in.

[osfan24]

Isn't the AO and NAO both positive?

[stormy]

4 minutes ago, Ji said:

I dont think the story is over on this noreaster.....or what this storm is going to be.

Hey Ji ! , I agree, stay tuned

[psuhoffman]

I wanted to illustrate what I meant when I talked about when we need to see a flip and why Jan 1 is a good benchmark for the "oh F we're in trouble" date.  

Right now what is coming around xmas is not surprising as it was a common pattern theme in both the good and bad nino years.  Even some of the ones that started out ok with an early snowfall went to crap for the middle to end of December.  Only 2002 and 2009 escaped this fate but both of those are unicorn everything went right in every way seasons that should be considered outliers...

Right now 1991, 1994 and 1997 all show up as good analogs to the coming pattern...but so do 1957, 1965, 1986, and 2015.  BTW I am including 2015-16 as a better nino year...yes I know it was a one hit wonder mostly...BUT I will die on the hill that we were unlucky not to get more snow that season.  Look at the H5 for January and February 2016

We had several close misses both before and after the Blizzard... and if all we get is one 2-3 foot storm so be it...that's still snow nirvanna compared to what we've been getting so I am including it in this sample of the "what we want to happen" group.

 

So what did Dec 20-25 look like in the years things flipped better later in winter

Looks familiar in that the pacific trough was set up too far east and was flooding the CONUS with pac puke...also notice the NAO was unhelpful.  

 

But look at Jan 10-15 in those same years...

By Jan 10 the better pattern had established itself.  Snow came later in some years...in some cases bad luck and close misses and in others it took a few weeks to get cold enough after a torch...but the pattern that lead to the snow was established early in January.  

 

Through December the bad and good nino years were pretty similar...but they diverge quickly around New Years.  By Jan 1 we will have a pretty good look at the 10th on guidance.  No not in terms of details but if some major shift is coming it should be showing up at least in hints on the guidance...so if by New Years there is no sign of the shift we need to see in the NAO and North Pac domains...then we are entering into 1992, 1995, 1998 territory.   

[psuhoffman]

@WinterWxLuvr Last thoughts for now...and wrt your comments earlier which brought up a good point that the changes we've seen on the guidance aren't that major...just subtle shifts that took things from good to blah.  However...in a nino the differences between some of the crap dud ninos and the very snowy ones is subtle.  The reason is we're kinda playing with fire wrt temps.  The STJ is there and that is a huge win for us as NS dominant patterns often we are just too far south and we deal with the downslope from the Apps.  Getting an STJ dominant split flow pattern is most of the battle here.  But having an enhanced pac jet comes with temperature limitations.  We are probably not going to have any cross polar flow most of the time.  So given that, a subtle shift in where the pacific low sets up is the difference between getting just enough northern flow into the east for it to be "just cold enough to snow" v the pac onslaught winning out.  

For reference here is what Jan 10-15 looked like in 1992, 1995, and 1998 which is the fate we want to avoid.  Note the differences from the good years I posted above isnt radical...just a minor shift in the pacific is the difference between just cold enough and lot of big snowstorms...and pac puke rain all winter.  

[pazzo83]

4 hours 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.

Those >0C temps damn near 80N - goodness gracious.

[hstorm]

42 minutes ago, pazzo83 said:

Those >0C temps damn near 80N - goodness gracious.

I'm just making an assumption, but it looks like the temperature output is somewhat skewed over water.  For example, it seems unlikely that all of Norway would be -10 to -25 C  (which is below normal), while the air temperature just off the coast is 0 to 5 (which, as you note, would be well above normal).  The gradient tracks the coast perfectly, which seems to me to be a red flag.

(I could be entirely wrong here.  Just using logic and not any science.)

[Kevin Reilly]

1 hour ago, pazzo83 said:

Those >0C temps damn near 80N - goodness gracious.

Hmmm there is more water surrounding the United States North American Continent and the South American Continent remember the waters are warm simply put the more land you have the colder the more water the warmer.  Waters hold onto warmth longer than the land therefore your land locked areas are supremely colder landmasses than the landmasses surrounded by warm waters where warm air is free to flow from the warmer waters over to the land pushing away the cold air masses or not allowing them to move in.