What Went Wrong in Winter 23-24/Base State/Will It Ever Snow Again??

[WEATHER53]

1 hour ago, psuhoffman said:

@WEATHER53 also, the best way you can make your point is to discuss your analysis and show the better way you think is out there to analyze and predict long range patterns.  I want to get better. If there is a better way than the current analog based methods I use I’m open to it. But vague criticism with no productive suggestions is unhelpful. Even if I wanted to act on your posts what exactly can I do?  You’ve provided no tangible suggestions. 

See I’ve provided  that about 5 times and even in last 36-48 hours after the most recent 6-120 hour bust but you all won’t read it. You flare up instead almost as if addicted 

SO For one last time 

Ditch the 7+ . A lot of extended weather is corrupted for agricultural and oil futures advisements

Stop looking at weather through a microscope. It does not enhance the resolution but rather blurs it. 5 miles by 5 miles is more than enough of a close up, really 10x10.  The closer up you zoom that more the errors rapidly multiply..

Go with less calculus and more AI stipulated analog composition 

Begin to consider that earthquakes,volcanoes and huge tidal waves actually may have shifted things in some way.  Lord knows plenty buy  into gas stoves and cow farts as our ruination and the things I mentioned are 20,000X stoves and cows. 
 

if one is wedded to all is just fine now then sally forth. I recognize that to not be true and yes I say so and it bothers the huggers real bad but I have had and  do right now have my suggestions for alternatives 

 I’m not the genius who invented models so maybe go to some other real smart hands on the controls guys who actually want a better forecasting science 

 

 

[psuhoffman]

47 minutes ago, snowfan said:

This thread is destined for failure. The folks that want to discuss climate change can’t help but satisfy that itch in the LR thread. lol.

Not everyone follows daily. When they come in and comment not knowing about this thread people invariably reply there. That’s what happened today. And CC is extremely linked to discussing long range patterns since one impacts the other so it’s somewhat unrealistic to expect no cross pollination of conversation. What I don’t get is I don’t see this reaction anywhere else. Both in some of the other regional forums I participated in and on other weather based science boards. It’s only here that people go berserk when CC gets brought up in a thread about predicting weather.  Other than the politics of it, and I’ve reached a point where IDGAFF about that I’m 100% focused on the science and weather people can shove their politics up their u know what.  

[SnowenOutThere]

21 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said:

See I’ve provided  that about 5 times and even in last 36-48 hours after the most recent 6-120 hour bust but you all won’t read it. You flare up instead almost as if addicted 

SO For one last time 

Ditch the 7+ . A lot of extended weather is corrupted for agricultural and oil futures advisements

Stop looking at weather through a microscope. It does not enhance the resolution but rather blurs it. 5 miles by 5 miles is more than enough of a close up, really 10x10.  The closer up you zoom that more the errors rapidly multiply..

Go with less calculus and more AI stipulated analog composition 

Begin to consider that earthquakes,volcanoes and huge tidal waves actually may have shifted things in some way.  Lord knows plenty buy  into gas stoves and cow farts as our ruination and the things I mentioned are 20,000X stoves and cows. 
 

if one is wedded to all is just fine now then sally forth. I recognize that to not be true and yes I say so and it bothers the huggers real bad but I have had and  do right now have my suggestions for alternatives 

 I’m not the genius who invented models so maybe go to some other real smart hands on the controls guys who actually want a better forecasting science 

 

 

I've always been on the fence of taking you seriously as I couldn't tell if it was a stormchaserchuck situation where his ideas are correct but the delivery is ... questionable. However I can now fully thank you for confirming I should never do so. If you earnestly don't believe in the settled science of climate change then why would you believe/understand any part of our atmosphere?

[EastCoast NPZ]

5 hours ago, Terpeast said:

Where was that? 

All I got was a flash freeze where I couldn’t even open my car door until I spent 20 minutes melting it with hot water.

This Nino winter gave me 12 days worth of sledding and snowman-making days with my daughter. Had the time of our lives, and we didn’t even have to travel to see snow.

Cue the Kevin shark tank meme…

I was living in NW Frederick Co (VA).  About 12 miles NW of winchester.  Different climate out there than here.

[psuhoffman]

3 hours ago, WEATHER53 said:

See I’ve provided  that about 5 times and even in last 36-48 hours after the most recent 6-120 hour bust but you all won’t read it. You flare up instead almost as if addicted 

SO For one last time 

Ditch the 7+ . A lot of extended weather is corrupted for agricultural and oil futures advisements

Stop looking at weather through a microscope. It does not enhance the resolution but rather blurs it. 5 miles by 5 miles is more than enough of a close up, really 10x10.  The closer up you zoom that more the errors rapidly multiply..

Go with less calculus and more AI stipulated analog composition 

Begin to consider that earthquakes,volcanoes and huge tidal waves actually may have shifted things in some way.  Lord knows plenty buy  into gas stoves and cow farts as our ruination and the things I mentioned are 20,000X stoves and cows. 
 

if one is wedded to all is just fine now then sally forth. I recognize that to not be true and yes I say so and it bothers the huggers real bad but I have had and  do right now have my suggestions for alternatives 

 I’m not the genius who invented models so maybe go to some other real smart hands on the controls guys who actually want a better forecasting science 

 

 

Here are some things I have thoughts on...some of them I agree with you on, some I do not.  I'm trying to have a cordial friendly conversation though.  No need for the hostility just because I missed one of your posts a few days ago.  

Stop looking at weather through a microscope. It does not enhance the resolution but rather blurs it. 5 miles by 5 miles is more than enough of a close up, really 10x10.  The closer up you zoom that more the errors rapidly multiply..

If you are referring to NWP here and the tendency for the globals to increase resolution, especially the euro lately, I agree.   As they have increased resolution they have increased variability.  The are technically more accurate now globally.  But they can be inconsistent run to run and with less predictable biases.  For me, in some cases, they were easier to use before the resolution increases.  They might have biases and be off but I could predict how they were off and adjust for them.  That made them more useful than when they go off on tangents run to run.  But they sacrificed consistency at longer leads for being able to better model details at shorter leads.  Wasn't my choice.  

Go with less calculus and more AI stipulated analog composition 

There are attempts at this right now, but they are new and it will take a little time to develop.  I've been following some of the AI models and they have not been awful, especially considering how new they are, basically first generation.  They have had some successes.  But they have had some bad failures too this winter.  They were still holding onto the storm for later this week for instance for days after the old school models realized it was going to be way too warm.  I hope they can develop this tool, I have absolutely no issue with using AI analog based methodology, it just wasn't available until now.  I do use analog forecasting when a threat is upon us.  I look at the CIPS analogs all the time and they inform how I adjust what the models are showing in my forecasts.  

Begin to consider that earthquakes,volcanoes and huge tidal waves actually may have shifted things in some way.  Lord knows plenty buy  into gas stoves and cow farts as our ruination and the things I mentioned are 20,000X stoves and cows. 

I don't have the resources to research any of that.  I can read the research others are doing though.  As of yet no reputable study has found a significant long term influence from any of those factors except one...the cows lol.  I didn't do any of that research.  But I balk at two things... the idea that climate change is some politically fueled agenda is first.  The research showing warming was done before there was politics about it.  The politics came later as different parties took sides and money interests aligned itself with those sides.  IMO some are putting the cart before the horse here.  

The other issue I have is that we have to consider every possible theory before they are proven.  That is not how it works.  When someone comes up with a new theory that goes against the status quo it is up to them to prove it.  The burden of proof is on the person proposing a new theory.  We don't start from a place of every possible theory is true until you disprove it.  So I have no first hand knowledge that the 32" change in the Earths axis during our lifetime has or hasn't changed our climate.  But I've seen absolutely no evidence or study proving that it has and so until that evidence is provided the status quo is that it hasn't.  I am willing to consider it has.  If someone conducts a study that proves it has, I can accept that.  But you seem to be asking me to accept these possibilities without any proof.  I don't think incorporating unproven speculation about every possible theory into my forecasts will increase their accuracy.  How would I even do that?  Ive seen nothing about how these things impacted climate in a tangible way.  So back in October when I was formulating my winter forecast exactly how could I have incorporated the change in the Earths axis or tidal waves?  Is there some research saying how I could adjust our snowfall climo for these variables that I have not seen?  If I am missing something I am open to seeing it and considering it.  

Ditch the 7+ . A lot of extended weather is corrupted for agricultural and oil futures advisements

so are you saying you're not going to issue seasonal forecasts anymore?  My question was about how to make long range analysis better and you pretty much said "don't do it".  That isn't getting better that's giving up.  I want to get better not give up.  This seems to imply your problem is that the long range thread exists at all.  You don't want us to improve on it you want us to get rid of it?  If so...why not just not go in there and then for you it doesn't exist and others that do want to discuss long range can do so?  Honest question.  

[Ji]

It probably should of snowed more in 97-98

[DarkSharkWX]

djf conus temp map will end up looking like a super nino

[pazzo83]

6 hours ago, WEATHER53 said:

See I’ve provided  that about 5 times and even in last 36-48 hours after the most recent 6-120 hour bust but you all won’t read it. You flare up instead almost as if addicted 

SO For one last time 

Ditch the 7+ . A lot of extended weather is corrupted for agricultural and oil futures advisements

Stop looking at weather through a microscope. It does not enhance the resolution but rather blurs it. 5 miles by 5 miles is more than enough of a close up, really 10x10.  The closer up you zoom that more the errors rapidly multiply..

Go with less calculus and more AI stipulated analog composition 

Begin to consider that earthquakes,volcanoes and huge tidal waves actually may have shifted things in some way.  Lord knows plenty buy  into gas stoves and cow farts as our ruination and the things I mentioned are 20,000X stoves and cows. 
 

if one is wedded to all is just fine now then sally forth. I recognize that to not be true and yes I say so and it bothers the huggers real bad but I have had and  do right now have my suggestions for alternatives 

 I’m not the genius who invented models so maybe go to some other real smart hands on the controls guys who actually want a better forecasting science 

 

 

let's leave aside that this answer is largely laughable and not worthy of any serious consideration.  Do you have any statistically significant evidence that decreasing the resolution on weather models improves their accuracy?

[PrinceFrederickWx]

-The sample sizes for seasonal forecasts are probably too small, and correlation does not equal causation.

-ENSO may be weighted too highly.

-Persistence and trends are underrated as forecasting tools.

-In recent years there seems to be fads of tracking esoteric indices that may be meaningless (Siberian snowcover, etc.)

[psuhoffman]

40 minutes ago, DarkSharkWX said:

djf conus temp map will end up looking like a super nino

It failed similarly but for different reasons. 98 the Nino pac trough was a beast and extended east because the Nino was very easy based and strong. This year the pac trough was weaker, more in line with a typical Nino,  more transient but it kept getter pushed east by Nina ish central pac ridging and displaced into the pna domain. 

[psuhoffman]

The persistent AK trough is also not very Nino ish. That’s more a weak Nina or neutral after a Nina look. 

[DarkSharkWX]

12 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

It failed similarly but for different reasons. 98 the Nino pac trough was a beast and extended east because the Nino was very easy based and strong. This year the pac trough was weaker, more in line with a typical Nino,  more transient but it kept getter pushed east by Nina ish central pac ridging and displaced into the pna domain. 

imo this year is a mix of a weaker 1973 and 1998 to an extent

and we did have a aleutian/GOA low for dec 
the slowed IO forcing is from the large +IOD collapse - which(the +IOD) is a good sign of nino coupling. it coupled extremely quickly as well; so thats why we saw more of a nina esque pattern despite the super nino trying to fight back

the record -PDO not even coming close to flipping is nonetheless surprising, ive heard some met students/mets talk about the decline of shipping aerosol emissions playing a role in maintaining the -PDO despite the nino

[psuhoffman]

17 minutes ago, DarkSharkWX said:

imo this year is a mix of a weaker 1973 and 1998 to an extent

and we did have a aleutian/GOA low for dec 
the slowed IO forcing is from the large +IOD collapse - which(the +IOD) is a good sign of nino coupling. it coupled extremely quickly as well; so thats why we saw more of a nina esque pattern despite the super nino trying to fight back

the record -PDO not even coming close to flipping is nonetheless surprising, ive heard some met students/mets talk about the decline of shipping aerosol emissions playing a role in maintaining the -PDO despite the nino

I’ve read that the reduction of SO2 may have increased warming due to increased sunlight. But is there evidence it’s somehow contributing to the PDO?  If so isn’t that extremely bad since we’re establishing a -pdo has become pretty hostile to snow here and that seems like a more permanent thing!  

[Terpeast]

[raindancewx]

Some of my dark arts (i.e. counting) methods are indicating that the fluky snowstorm in the South around 1/16 is going to show up again around 3/1. I'd imagine you guys will have a shot with that system and one other at least before your chances fully end in week two of March. GFS has snow as far south as central TN, just north of that 1/16 system which had snow to northern Mississippi on the latest run. I've seen signals for a pretty powerful system around 3/1 since October, so I do buy it. A lesser, but probably colder system around 3/9 too. We'll see if I'm right soon enough.

[wxdude64]

14 hours ago, DarkSharkWX said:

djf conus temp map will end up looking like a super nino

Very, very NINOish. 

[psuhoffman]

13 hours ago, DarkSharkWX said:

imo this year is a mix of a weaker 1973 and 1998 to an extent

and we did have a aleutian/GOA low for dec 
the slowed IO forcing is from the large +IOD collapse - which(the +IOD) is a good sign of nino coupling. it coupled extremely quickly as well; so thats why we saw more of a nina esque pattern despite the super nino trying to fight back

the record -PDO not even coming close to flipping is nonetheless surprising, ive heard some met students/mets talk about the decline of shipping aerosol emissions playing a role in maintaining the -PDO despite the nino

December did have more a canonical nino pattern, which is why early on I was still very optimistic for the winter despite the snowless early returns.  The problem is in a strong nino December is typically warm/snowless anyways.  The only exceptions are weaker or modoki nino's where the pacific trough is displaced west of normal for a nino and so we get a better PNA ridge.  Even in the past it's always been difficult for us to overcome any deficiencies in the pacific until January.  Our snowfall in December is more highly correlated to getting BOTH an ideal Atlantic High latitude AND pacific patterns. If you look at all the strong nino analogs even on the snowier side of the list...1958, 1966, 1987 and 2016, none had any snow in December except 1958 which had one fluke snowstorm in an otherwise torch month.  The others were all snowless and warm.  

The issue is when the nino would have helped us it decoupled some in January.  It ended up kind of a hybrid with both nino and nina tendencies.  The stronger than normal ridging west of the nino trough was an issue.  It continually pushed the nino trough east of ideal.  The nino trough was NOT out of control like 1973 and 1998.  It was not nearly the strength of a super nino trough.  But it was displaced east so that it had the same impact on our pattern because of the nina like ridging further west in the pacific.  We got a half and half winter, the problem is we got the worst half of both a nina and nino!  Yay us.  

[psuhoffman]

Ironic given my last post above, but just went to check the overnight runs on Wxbell and saw JB made a post and was curious...he pretty much just said the same things I've been saying the last few days wrt what went wrong.  I am critical of JB a LOT so its only fair I point it out, begrudgingly.  Other than the volcano and anti CC agenda stuff he forces into every one of his posts...the rest of it I agreed with.  His analysis of the PDO/MJO/Nina base state and how it impacted the Nino is pretty much the same conclusions I came to wrt why I got this winter wrong.  The fact I made the same mistakes as JB means now I need to go rethink my life.  

[Terpeast]

3 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Ironic given my last post above, but just went to check the overnight runs on Wxbell and saw JB made a post and was curious...he pretty much just said the same things I've been saying the last few days wrt what went wrong.  I am critical of JB a LOT so its only fair I point it out, begrudgingly.  Other than the volcano and anti CC agenda stuff he forces into every one of his posts...the rest of it I agreed with.  His analysis of the PDO/MJO/Nina base state and how it impacted the Nino is pretty much the same conclusions I came to wrt why I got this winter wrong.  The fact I made the same mistakes as JB means now I need to go rethink my life.  

Until the pac flips, I’m going to approach it as nothing will change to the mostly warm winter likely ratters except for a lucky hit like Jan 2022 and mid-Jan this year. 

In other words, wake me up once we get a +PDO

[psuhoffman]

4 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

Until the pac flips, I’m going to approach it as nothing will change to the mostly warm winter likely ratters except for a lucky hit like Jan 2022 and mid-Jan this year. 

In other words, wake me up once we get a +PDO

This is where I am, but apparently some are now saying the PDO is permanent due to lower SO2 lol 

[Terpeast]

2 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

This is where I am, but apparently some are now saying the PDO is permanent due to lower SO2 lol 

I’m not convinced that lower SO2 is the biggest or the only factor, but if it is permanent, then this recent 7-8 year period is our new normal. 

[EastCoast NPZ]

Let's start pumping that SO2 into the atmosphere then. Stat!

[cbmclean]

17 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

I’m not convinced that lower SO2 is the biggest or the only factor, but if it is permanent, then this recent 7-8 year period is our new normal. 

I'll have to see some studies on that; until then I see it as just idle speculation. 

[cbmclean]

24 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

This is where I am, but apparently some are now saying the PDO is permanent due to lower SO2 lol 

One of my hobbies is now researching the nature of the PDO.  Laugh at me but I usually start research on Wikipedia(it's a great place to get an overview!) and I came across mention of an "Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation".  Anyone ever heard of that one before?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdecadal_Pacific_oscillation

[DarkSharkWX]

14 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

I’ve read that the reduction of SO2 may have increased warming due to increased sunlight. But is there evidence it’s somehow contributing to the PDO?  If so isn’t that extremely bad since we’re establishing a -pdo has become pretty hostile to snow here and that seems like a more permanent thing!  

i mean its a good thing in the long term, its just in the mean time its keeping the -PDO from flipping despite the strong +ENSO

will prob flip eventually either way

[psuhoffman]

1 minute ago, CAPE said:

The low track might be good, but look up top. No block/+NAO produces an inverted UL/surface from ideal. Damn near a 1050 mb high exiting stage right off of Atlantic Canada. Not a winning look for snow in our area.

I didn’t even look at the run. It was a joke. 
 

But….and I promise this is the last time (at least in this thread) that I’ll say this…but several years ago when I did that case study of every Baltimore 4”+ snowstorm I was shocked how many actually featured a totally shit god awful pattern with reds and blues in all the wrong places with a pile airmass where it was 50 degrees the day before and the only thing that went right was somehow by some means the storm took a perfect track and so we got a 6” wet snow paste bomb storm.
 

Obviously that wasn’t the majority of our storms and it’s not how we want to roll. I’m not saying we root for crap patterns. But it was enough of the storms that if we can’t ever get that kind of thing anymore, where it snows just because of a good track in an awful pattern, then it’s going to hurt us A Fooking Lot!   Way more than some here want to admit!  

Just off the top of my head without even looking at the files…

Our only real snow in 1997 came in a god awful pattern because we got lucky with a wave track. 

Look at this BS…we got a 4-8” snow from THIS BS on a stick pattern.  

1976 would have been a completely snowless winter if not for a 10” wet snow storm that came in a pattern that had no business snowing in.

There was another year in the early 90s where our only 2 significant snows both came in a pattern that had no business snowing. Yea it was a crap year but most had like 10-15” not NOTHING!  
 

You know what they all have in common. They’re a long ass time ago. It’s not happening anymore.  There were a lot in the 50s, 60s, 70s, then they started to decline and they’ve gone extinct the last 10 years.
 

Lately our bad patterns are so warm that it doesn’t matter what the track is.  And every time I hear the same thing…but this wasn’t perfect. That wasn’t perfect. The high was too this or that. There was too much ridging in front.  Yea no shit I know it can still snow if every fucking thing goes perfect. Yea if we get a 980 low off VA beach with a 1040 high over Montreal and a -3stdv block with a -epo arctic air mass yes we will get a shit ton of snow. But that’s going to happen once a decade. What about the rest of the god damn time?  We had so many bad but not awful winters in the past where if you take away a couple snows that came from pure luck in a shit pattern they are suddenly a 3” snow year instead of 12” or absolutely nothing instead of 10” like 1976!  
 

lastly I know it’s impossible to prove what storms would or wouldn’t have been a snow 30 years ago. Not without tools I don’t have access too. There were perfect track rains in the 50s too when it was just too warm for any track to overcome.  But there were some snows too!  So while I can’t prove anything because of any one storm…when it happens over and over and over and none of them seem to be snow outside the higher elevations anymore…the preponderance of evidence is damning. 

[anotherman]

You keep doing this. Now isn't then. Who exactly are you trying to convince?

[snowfan]

28 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I didn’t even look at the run. It was a joke. 
 

But….and I promise this is the last time (at least in this thread) that I’ll say this…but several years ago when I did that case study of every Baltimore 4”+ snowstorm I was shocked how many actually featured a totally shit god awful pattern with reds and blues in all the wrong places with a pile airmass where it was 50 degrees the day before and the only thing that went right was somehow by some means the storm took a perfect track and so we got a 6” wet snow paste bomb storm.
 

Obviously that wasn’t the majority of our storms and it’s not how we want to roll. I’m not saying we root for crap patterns. But it was enough of the storms that if we can’t ever get that kind of thing anymore, where it snows just because of a good track in an awful pattern, then it’s going to hurt us A Fooking Lot!   Way more than some here want to admit!  

Just off the top of my head without even looking at the files…

Our only real snow in 1997 came in a god awful pattern because we got lucky with a wave track. 

Look at this BS…we got a 4-8” snow from THIS BS on a stick pattern.  

1976 would have been a completely snowless winter if not for a 10” wet snow storm that came in a pattern that had no business snowing in.

There was another year in the early 90s where our only 2 significant snows both came in a pattern that had no business snowing. Yea it was a crap year but most had like 10-15” not NOTHING!  
 

You know what they all have in common. They’re a long ass time ago. It’s not happening anymore.  There were a lot in the 50s, 60s, 70s, then they started to decline and they’ve gone extinct the last 10 years.
 

Lately our bad patterns are so warm that it doesn’t matter what the track is.  And every time I hear the same thing…but this wasn’t perfect. That wasn’t perfect. The high was too this or that. There was too much ridging in front.  Yea no shit I know it can still snow if every fucking thing goes perfect. Yea if we get a 980 low off VA beach with a 1040 high over Montreal and a -3stdv block with a -epo arctic air mass yes we will get a shit ton of snow. But that’s going to happen once a decade. What about the rest of the god damn time?  We had so many bad but not awful winters in the past where if you take away a couple snows that came from pure luck in a shit pattern they are suddenly a 3” snow year instead of 12” or absolutely nothing instead of 10” like 1976!  
 

lastly I know it’s impossible to prove what storms would or wouldn’t have been a snow 30 years ago. Not without tools I don’t have access too. There were perfect track rains in the 50s too when it was just too warm for any track to overcome.  But there were some snows too!  So while I can’t prove anything because of any one storm…when it happens over and over and over and none of them seem to be snow outside the higher elevations anymore…the preponderance of evidence is damning. 

How many times are you going to tell us about your 4” storm case study? You have turned into a broken record.

[midatlanticweather]

1 minute ago, snowfan said:

How many times are you going to tell us about your 4” storm case study? You have turned into a broken record.

So have the fails 

[psuhoffman]

17 minutes ago, CAPE said:

You keep doing this. Now isn't then. Who exactly are you trying to convince?

You know who. And ya I know they will never be convinced. It will be 2050 and Baltimore won’t have had a warning event for 30 years and they will still be saying “it’s just cyclical, we just can’t know, underwater volcanoes, aaaahhhhh, don’t talk about CC” because either it’s too depressing for them to admit OR their politics won’t allow them. 
 

But in a stubborn SOB!  I couldn’t have lasted 17 years teaching HS in inner city Baltimore if I wasn’t. 

ETA: and I know you aren’t in those categories and my rant wasn’t even at you even though it was a reply to you, it’s that in fairness you give the head in the sand crew ammunition when you say stuff like “well the pattern isn’t actually good for snow”. Yea I know. But we used to and I guess I’m not ready to come to peace with the fact we can’t anymore, get snow in a bad pattern if we get lucky from a perfect wave track.