Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,598
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    PublicWorks143
    Newest Member
    PublicWorks143
    Joined

It was a Flop... February 2024 Disco. Thread


 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Chrisrotary12 said:

Just switched to the new Planet Fitness here and it’s on a tiny little hill with a great east view. Sunrise for the win. 

That’s the one thing that sucks about moving clocks forward. It’s dark again for another month at 6a.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, weatherwiz said:

Since I saw it was mentioned again a few pages back, 

Can someone please explain to me where the stigma comes from that a strong EL Nino guarantees a crap winter in terms of snowfall. And yes, some have guaranteed that because every now and then you have people crawl out from under the bed saying, "I know it was going to suck because of strong EL Nino". 

 

Did the 5 ppd people's posts reset yet? 

I am curious on the answer to this 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last couple of modeling intervals continue the fight between the EPS/GGEM vs the GEFs.

At this point ( seein' as everyone cares lol ) ... I am fully and spiritually done with winter. 

It's probably a sad homage to climate ...that I ever find myself in that mind space on February 20th. But this kind of obvious seasonal breakdown thing, happening earlier and earlier ... it just is what it is. And now combining that the sun angle is climbing so fast, and how it'd take a delusional nimrod not to see/suspect that the planetary state of aff"airs" will warm up given least excuse imaginable ... the sense of futility is undeniable.

Anyway, I'm hoping the EPS isn't off but ...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

Did the 5 ppd people's posts reset yet? 

I am curious on the answer to this 

It probably comes from all the bad 80s winters that featured El Ninos of some sort... at least that's what we were told at the time. I wasn't with it enough to, and/or have access to information at that time to really pay attention.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I realize some of you have kids and life complexities therein that require you work out at that hideous time of day - hats off man...

jesus

I usually flex my schedule on days that I lift to get in there early PM before its packed...I superset opposing muscle groups alot, so I occupy two stations at once and I can't stand not being able to access equipment when I need it.

  • Weenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, UnitedWx said:

It probably comes from all the bad 80s winters that featured El Ninos of some sort... at least that's what we were told at the time. I wasn't with it enough to, and/or have access to information at that time to really pay attention.

That would be my guess as well, similar to the weak La Nina example I posted yesterday regarding 1995-1996.

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

That would be my guess as well, similar to the weak La Nina example I posted yesterday regarding 1995-1996.

Yea, the issue wasn't El Nino...had nothing to do with that. The issue was the same one that has been plauging our winters for several years now independent of ENSO and that is an unsavory extra tropical Pacific. But its a fruitless endeavor to logic with the butt-hurt types that swore up and down that winter would suck because of the strong El Nino, as a preemptive defense....now that winter has in fact sucked, they want their validation in lieu of winter and good luck depriving them of that-

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yea, the issue wasn't El Nino...had nothing to do with that. The issue was the same one that has been plauging our winters for several years now independent of ENSO and that is an unsavory extra tropical Pacific. But its a fruitless endeavor to logic with the butt-hurt types that swore up and down that winter would suck because of the strong El Nino, as a preemptive defense....now that winter has in fact sucked, they want their validation in lieu of winter and good luck depriving them of that-

Yup, well said. The next level of defense would probably be mentioning super-strong events but even that doesn't hold significant merit. If forecasting seasonal snowfall was as easy as "this winter will suck b/c of strong EL Nino" or "this winter will rock b/c of weak La Nina"...well everyone would do snowfall forecasts and everyone would be right :lol: 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yea, the issue wasn't El Nino...had nothing to do with that. The issue was the same one that has been plauging our winters for several years now independent of ENSO and that is an unsavory extra tropical Pacific. But its a fruitless endeavor to logic with the butt-hurt types that swore up and down that winter would suck because of the strong El Nino, as a preemptive defense....now that winter has in fact sucked, they want their validation in lieu of winter and good luck depriving them of that-

lol the Aleutian / Gulf of AK low is non-existent. absolutely infuriating. just not even close to the others, even the ones that did torch

compday.OqJjirABbr.gif.2635c30f32a8b70f72ca45c165fac14c.gif

compday.NCCNeKZJbL.gifcompday.qzE7WfZitU.gif

compday.RbwAVewtd1.gifcompday.MF9m6kudIq.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

lol the Aleutian / Gulf of AK low is non-existent. absolutely infuriating. just not even close to the others, even the ones that did torch

compday.OqJjirABbr.gif.2635c30f32a8b70f72ca45c165fac14c.gif

compday.NCCNeKZJbL.gifcompday.qzE7WfZitU.gif

compday.RbwAVewtd1.gifcompday.MF9m6kudIq.gif

1973 is a pretty good match. I liked that analog with respect to everthing but the polar domain, which has worked out. I just wish that I hadn't factored the polar fields so heavily into my snowfall totals because as it turned out it didn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

1973 is a pretty good match. I liked that analog with respect to everthing but the polar domain, which has worked out. I just wish that I hadn't factored the polar fields so heavily into my snowfall totals because as it turned out it didn't matter.

1973 was definitely the best match out of those winters, especially given the -PDO. even then, there's still barely any low pressure signature where there should be one. would have made a difference if the blocking had worked out, but it makes sense that we would see one of the biggest medium to long range pattern collapses in recent memory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

1973 was definitely the best match out of those winters, especially given the -PDO. even then, there's still barely any low pressure signature where there should be one. would have made a difference if the blocking had worked out, but it makes sense that we would see one of the biggest medium to long range pattern collapses in recent memory

Raindance made a great point in that snowfall is so heavily dependent on "flukey luck" that you have to use the same methodology in making a snowfall forecast......which defers to the propensity for -PDO El Nino to pork the NE in every way imaginable. I wish I had ignored the blocking that I correctly forecast and just went ratter snow, anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, maddening how we couldn't get a GoA low established. Looking at the January/February pattern, you can kind of visualize how different things would have looked had there been a GoA low. Heights across the west would have probably been more neutral and that ridging in Canada may have been pushed back a bit with those below-average heights out in the Atlantic a bit closer. This alone would have had an impact on the storm track. 

Of course, there is much more it to this. If there was a GoA vortex then it would have been a question of size, strength, structure, placement, etc. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

CC in general has, agree, but interesting only 3 top 10 snowiest Feb’s have been done in the last 50yrs. 

I looked at the long-term (began Jan 1893) record at the Farmington co-op, which sadly went offline in October 2022 when the 55-years (late) observer's health declined and no one picked up the torch.  Quite similar - 6-of-10 lower during the past 50 and only 3 of the highest 10.  (Their snowiest for any month, Feb 1969, missed the cut by 4 years.)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CoastalWx said:

That’s the one thing that sucks about moving clocks forward. It’s dark again for another month at 6a.

It's too early-the old system of the 1st week of April was better.  Of course every year we hear about getting rid of it but nothing ever changes due to issues with both ways (DST-dark Dec/Jan mornings, EST, darker summer evenings)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lava Rock said:

I've only been below 10F twice

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk
 

We touched -12 in January.  If that holds for winter's coldest (probably about a 99% chance it will), it will tie 01-02 for the 2nd most modest, 2° colder than the -10 in 05-06, and will be the 6th of 26 winters failing to reach -20 or colder.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Brian5671 said:

JB is not really relevant anymore-his last few winter forecasts have been so bad it's almost laughable...he will miss the NE on temps by 5-6 degrees easily.

I almost think its kind of pointless to make such specific calls regarding temperatures with long-range forecasts (for example, saying something like +1 to +3 or -2 to -3) just because of how crazy the anomalous warmth has been overall. We've seen some months over the past few decades of anomalies +5...+6...and even higher. There is absolutely zero way anyone could ever forecast something that anomalous in advance. Let's say someone went with a +2 to +4 for a month, but it turned out to be +6 or +7...from the number alone that forecast doesn't look "great" but how the heck would anyone go something as extreme as +6 or +7? 

Now just saying "above-average" like I did in my outlook isn't great either...that's kind of a "cheap way" out but getting specific with numbers and ranges for something like seasonal can be very hairy. 

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...