2024-2025 La Nina

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, michsnowfreak said:

I agree 100% Don, but as a gentle reminder (not to you, just for some others) it goes both ways. If the LR guidance shows warm it is equally subject to errors. No one should take any of that seriously, and forecasters posting those maps on videos where the general public are asking for misinterpretations. 

Absolutely. Much can still change.

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Don, what is the alternative? Refrain from long range forecasting?

No. If one wants to forecast, one should. IMO, making the effort is worth it, as it can lead to insights and breakthroughs over time.

However, forecasters who provide information to the general public should explicitly state the degree of uncertainty that is inherent in long-range forecasts. We, here, are aware of model limitations, the general public isn't.

They should also verify their forecasts. The gap between the public's perceptions of forecasting skill and actual forecasting skill results from factors including the public's unfamiliarity with risk. Thus, if someone posts on, let's say X, that a very snowy pattern or blowtorch pattern will occur in late December and the outcome falls somewhere in between, the public only recalls the forecast that failed. It's even worse if the opposite outcome occurs. And because the forecasting language was definitive, the public makes no allowances for forecasting risk. They simply assume that meteorologists can't accurately forecast.

In particular, the social media accounts that hype events--hype leads to greater social media engagement--are particularly damaging to the profession. By definition, every event can't be notable, much less extreme. Such events are low probability or very low probability events. Portraying events as extreme or referencing extreme events without providing sufficient context does a lot of damage.

I believe the CPC has chosen to stick with probabilistic forecasts, because such forecasts convey the degree of uncertainty involved with various outcomes. Deterministic forecasts provide concrete numbers for outcomes but sacrifice the degree of risk. One can bridge the gap by conveying information about uncertainty when making a deterministic forecast.

My point applies to those who are actually forecasting professionally for the public on a professional basis.

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

The only options are to be Bluewave...god love him and how brilliant he is, but refrains from issuing a forecast beyond 2 weeks out....or to do a copious amount of research and hope to have long range guidance bare some similarities to the expectations based upon said research...that, to me, is different from blindly hugging a desired outcome. Long range forecasts are inherently prone to a large degree of error...no way around that.

I don't agree. Even language similar to this would be helpful: "The outcome represents our best judgment of how the pattern will evolve, but at such time frames significant changes are still possible..."

[michsnowfreak]

4 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

No. If one wants to forecast, one should. IMO, making the effort is worth it, as it can lead to insights and breakthroughs over time.

However, forecasters who provide information to the general public should explicitly state the degree of uncertainty that is inherent in long-range forecasts. We, here, are aware of model limitations, the general public isn't.

So true. Even as I am the "weatherman" to my family and friends and they ask me "how much do you think we will get?", when it comes to daily weather, no matter how many times I warm against it, Ill hear "this morning my phone showed cloudy tmrw now it shows a snowflake" (referring to the weather app which changes everytime you refresh it). 

[BuffaloWeather]

What a start to winter, up to 43” on the year already. 

[leo2000]

2 hours ago, GaWx said:

 In contrast to the above BAMwx tweet showing the extreme -EPO of the WB 6Z CFS ensemble mean, here’s the average of the last 12 CFS ensemble means at Tropical Tidbits for Jan 9-15 (caution still advised as it is for 5 weeks out and it is the CFS): still a decent -EPO but much more subdued than the WB 6Z CFS ens mean (531 dm at MN/Canada border):

 

Now check out the accompanying TT 2m temperature anomaly map: nothing extraordinary at all in the US with NN to slightly BN in the upper Midwest

 

 Compare the above to the WB 6Z CFS ens that BAMwx just tweeted (just one run and WB version) mean for Jan 9-15: this would border on historic for much of the US, especially Midwest (516 dm at MN/Canada border):

And the accompanying WB 6Z CFS ens mean of today 2m temperature anomaly map has insanely ridiculous cold throughout most of the US (10-30F BN lmao) with nearly -30F in the upper Midwest (note the everpresent cold spot near Chicago and relative warm spot N Lake Michigan/Michigan indicative of flawed WB CFS maps):

Not as cold as weatherbell but the lastest run had just gotten colder for the east. 

 

https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=cfs-avg&region=us&pkg=T2maMean&runtime=2024120506&fh=1002

[snowman19]

1 hour ago, leo2000 said:

Not as cold as weatherbell but the lastest run had just gotten colder for the east. 

 

https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=cfs-avg&region=us&pkg=T2maMean&runtime=2024120506&fh=1002

The CFS is totally useless this far ahead. Check it again at the tail end of this month when it actually has credibility for January

[MJO812]

38 minutes ago, BuffaloWeather said:

What a start to winter, up to 43” on the year already. 

0 here

 Congrats 

[rclab]

29 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

0 here

 Congrats 

The consolation is that the gradient was spread over almost 300 miles. Stay well and hopeful, as always …..

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, BuffaloWeather said:

What a start to winter, up to 43” on the year already. 

Not too shabby considering NYC and Boston’s 2 year snowfall totals combined were only 32”.

Time Series Summary for NY CITY CENTRAL PARK, NY - Oct through Sep
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

2023-2024	7.5	0
2022-2023	2.3	0

 

Time Series Summary for Boston Area, MA (ThreadEx) - Oct through Sep
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

2023-2024	9.8	0
2022-2023	12.4	0

[GaWx]

 Fwiw this is the weakest SPV Euro weeklies run yet for late Dec through Jan. I still wouldn’t call this “weak” but it is the weakest yet for then/weaker than avg. There are more members dipping rather sharply Dec 20-23 though there are still only 2 of 100 members (4%) with an actual wind reversal (major SSW) this month. I’ve learned based on the last couple of years that the models actually tend to be slow in catching onto major SSW events. With Dec 20th still being 15 days out, any possible major SSW then would probably be too far out for the bulk of members to see it though I’m by no means predicting one at this point:

 

Edit: Looking back at records for La Niña or cold neutral with a W QBO and having a major SSW, the earliest in the season I could find was that of 12/31/2001. The second earliest is 1/24/2009.

[snowman19]

18 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 Fwiw this is the weakest SPV Euro weeklies run yet for late Dec through Jan. I still wouldn’t call this “weak” but it is the weakest yet for then/weaker than avg. There are more members dipping rather sharply Dec 20-23 though there are still only 2 of 100 members (4%) with an actual wind reversal (major SSW) this month. I’ve learned based on the last couple of years that the models actually tend to be slow in catching onto major SSW events. With Dec 20th still being 15 days out, any possible major SSW then would probably be too far out for the bulk of members to see it though I’m by no means predicting one at this point:

Color me very skeptical. -ENSO/+QBO/high solar is the LEAST likely combination to produce a major SSWE. Not saying that it’s impossible obviously, but the likely hood of a major SSWE is not good at all IMO @Stormchaserchuck1

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, snowman19 said:

Color me very skeptical. -ENSO/+QBO/high solar is the LEAST likely combination to produce a major SSWE. Not saying that it’s impossible obviously, but the likely hood of a major SSWE is not good at all IMO @Stormchaserchuck1

 Thanks! Indeed, I counted only 5 major SSWs during 13 -ENSO/+QBO winters since 1957-8, with all interestingly enough only since 1999-00 and with 2 of these during 2001-2. The other 3 were during 1999-00, 2008-9, and 2022-3. So, just since 1999-00, there have been 5 major SSWs during 8 -ENSO/+QBO winters though there was only one during the last 5.
 

How was solar for these 5 major SSWs?

March of 2000: SSN 217 (near peak)

Dec of 2001: SSN 213 (near peak)

Feb of 2002: SSN 170 (just past peak)

Jan of 2009: SSN 1 (minimum)

Feb of 2023: SSN 111 (active but not near peak)

 Based on this data I see no negative correlation between SSN and chance of a major SSW during -ENSO/W QBO.
 

 The first 5 -ENSO/+QBO winters had none and only one of the last 5 had one. Four out of the 5 major SSWs were during 3 -ENSO/+QBO winters in a row!

 I agree that the likelihood isn’t good, especially one as early as ~12/24. But there’s still a nontrivial chance at some point this winter imho. Also, solar max doesn’t appear to lower those chances. Look at the SSNs I just compiled. I realize there seems to be an inverse relationship between SSN and -NAO winter as I’ve noted. But that’s not the same thing.

 The 13 -ENSO/+QBO (at 30 mb) winters since 1957-8 were 1961-2, 1966-7, 1971-2, 1975-6, 1985-6, 1999-00, 2001-2, 2008-9, 2010-1, 2013-4, 2016-7, 2020-1, and 2022-3.

SSN: https://www.sidc.be/SILSO/DATA/SN_m_tot_V2.0.txt

QBO: https://psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/qbo.data

[mitchnick]

28 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 Thanks! Indeed, I counted only 5 major SSWs during 13 -ENSO/+QBO winters since 1957-8, with all interestingly enough only since 1999-00 and with 2 of these during 2001-2. The other 3 were during 1999-00, 2008-9, and 2022-3. So, just since 1999-00, there have been 5 major SSWs during 8 -ENSO/+QBO winters though there was only one during the last 5.
 

How was solar for these 5 major SSWs?

March of 2000: SSN 217 (near peak)

Dec of 2001: SSN 213 (near peak)

Feb of 2002: SSN 170 (just past peak)

Jan of 2009: SSN 1 (minimum)

Feb of 2023: SSN 111 (active but not near peak)

 Based on this data I see no negative correlation between SSN and chance of a major SSW during -ENSO/W QBO.
 

 The first 5 -ENSO/+QBO winters had none and only one of the last 5 had one. Four out of the 5 major SSWs were during 3 -ENSO/+QBO winters in a row!

 I agree that the likelihood isn’t good, especially one as early as ~12/24. But there’s still a nontrivial chance at some point this winter imho. Also, solar max doesn’t appear to lower those chances. Look at the SSNs I just compiled. I realize there seems to be an inverse relationship between SSN and -NAO winter as I’ve noted. But that’s not the same thing.

 The 13 -ENSO/+QBO (at 30 mb) winters since 1957-8 were 1961-2, 1966-7, 1971-2, 1975-6, 1985-6, 1999-00, 2001-2, 2008-9, 2010-1, 2013-4, 2016-7, 2020-1, and 2022-3.

SSN: https://www.sidc.be/SILSO/DATA/SN_m_tot_V2.0.txt

QBO: https://psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/qbo.data

We're better off with a weakened PV like the Euro is showing vs  SSW. And the Euro doesn't even have to be right for that matter. Just keep the PV from looking like the great Saturn storm and we'll have a chance imho.

[Daniel Boone]

52 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 Thanks! Indeed, I counted only 5 major SSWs during 13 -ENSO/+QBO winters since 1957-8, with all interestingly enough only since 1999-00 and with 2 of these during 2001-2. The other 3 were during 1999-00, 2008-9, and 2022-3. So, just since 1999-00, there have been 5 major SSWs during 8 -ENSO/+QBO winters though there was only one during the last 5.
 

How was solar for these 5 major SSWs?

March of 2000: SSN 217 (near peak)

Dec of 2001: SSN 213 (near peak)

Feb of 2002: SSN 170 (just past peak)

Jan of 2009: SSN 1 (minimum)

Feb of 2023: SSN 111 (active but not near peak)

 Based on this data I see no negative correlation between SSN and chance of a major SSW during -ENSO/W QBO.
 

 The first 5 -ENSO/+QBO winters had none and only one of the last 5 had one. Four out of the 5 major SSWs were during 3 -ENSO/+QBO winters in a row!

 I agree that the likelihood isn’t good, especially one as early as ~12/24. But there’s still a nontrivial chance at some point this winter imho. Also, solar max doesn’t appear to lower those chances. Look at the SSNs I just compiled. I realize there seems to be an inverse relationship between SSN and -NAO winter as I’ve noted. But that’s not the same thing.

 The 13 -ENSO/+QBO (at 30 mb) winters since 1957-8 were 1961-2, 1966-7, 1971-2, 1975-6, 1985-6, 1999-00, 2001-2, 2008-9, 2010-1, 2013-4, 2016-7, 2020-1, and 2022-3.

SSN: https://www.sidc.be/SILSO/DATA/SN_m_tot_V2.0.txt

QBO: https://psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/qbo.data

Actually, some decent year's in there snowfall wise here in the Southern Apps.. about even for above and below average.

[GaWx]

42 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

We're better off with a weakened PV like the Euro is showing vs  SSW. And the Euro doesn't even have to be right for that matter. Just keep the PV from looking like the great Saturn storm and we'll have a chance imho.

Thanks, Mitch. I’m curious. Why is just a weakened PV better than (major) SSW? I know they haven’t all resulted in a cold E US within a few weeks afterward. But a decent number have done that, some impressively so. They may do better though when we don’t have a preexisting strong -PNA/strong SE ridge. That muted and shortened the cooling from the mid Feb of 2023 major SSW even though we in the SE got a chilly week in early to mid Mar (coldest in quite awhile).

[mitchnick]

57 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Thanks, Mitch. I’m curious. Why is just a weakened PV better than (major) SSW? I know they haven’t all resulted in a cold E US within a few weeks afterward. But a decent number have done that, some impressively so. They may do better though when we don’t have a preexisting strong -PNA/strong SE ridge. That muted and shortened the cooling from the mid Feb of 2023 major SSW even though we in the SE got a chilly week in early to mid Mar (coldest in quite awhile).

No guarantee that the consequences of the SSW will benefit the Conus. If the cold goes somewhere else in the Northern Hemisphere, it could mean we get the warm end of the stick. We just need the right pattern without risking an already difficult task. That's the way I see it. Of course, if we're snowless and warm come mid-Feb, then it's Hail Mary time and I'm all in. Lol

[PhiEaglesfan712]

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

Thanks, Mitch. I’m curious. Why is just a weakened PV better than (major) SSW? I know they haven’t all resulted in a cold E US within a few weeks afterward. But a decent number have done that, some impressively so. They may do better though when we don’t have a preexisting strong -PNA/strong SE ridge. That muted and shortened the cooling from the mid Feb of 2023 major SSW even though we in the SE got a chilly week in early to mid Mar (coldest in quite awhile).

March-August 2023 was a cool stretch of months here in the mid-Atlantic. May and June were the brunt of the cool weather here, with temperature departures of -2 to -4 in many locations. That is very rare for that time of year.

Of course, it was too late for snow to fall. But if we can get a -2 to -4 temperature departure in January and February, instead of May and June...

[BuffaloWeather]

2 hours ago, mitchnick said:

We're better off with a weakened PV like the Euro is showing vs  SSW. And the Euro doesn't even have to be right for that matter. Just keep the PV from looking like the great Saturn storm and we'll have a chance imho.

Yep, I’d take a weakened PV over a SSW anyday. 

[MJO812]

DT was on the Joe Cioffi show this evening talking about the pattern. He loves a big change to colder and snowier at the end of this month and next month .

https://www.youtube.com/live/mWL0xRd1dSs?si=Yh5-ifZrT0JFeNSx

[jm1220]

7 hours ago, bluewave said:

Not too shabby considering NYC and Boston’s 2 year snowfall totals combined were only 32”.

Time Series Summary for NY CITY CENTRAL PARK, NY - Oct through Sep
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

2023-2024	7.5	0
2022-2023	2.3	0

 

Time Series Summary for Boston Area, MA (ThreadEx) - Oct through Sep
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

2023-2024	9.8	0
2022-2023	12.4	0

BOS’s run of luck went dry. In the last 5 winters back to 20-21, my backyard 30 miles E of Central Park probably has the same snow on average as them. As much as NYC can’t get away with consistent 40” winters, BOS can’t get away with the 60-70” seasons they were getting and will revert back to their 40” or so long term mean. 

[donsutherland1]

This is an example of the hype that I was criticizing earlier:

Now, let's take a look at the BAMWX extreme forecast and historic data for four cities shown in the more extreme parts of the map: Chicago, Great Falls, Indianapolis, and Madison. In three cases, the cold would be unprecedented for the period in question.

While it could be colder than normal, the probability of the kind of cold shown on the map is extremely low. Moreover, one is dealing with a timeframe more than five weeks into the future where model skill is far less than climatology.

Considering the timeframe, the historic data, and the smaller pool of Northern Hemisphere deep cold in the contemporary area, the kind of widespread extreme weekly anomalies shown on the map are exceptionally unlikely. Posting such a map is reckless. Moreover, even as BAMWX focuses on Indiana, the map is disconnected from Indianapolis' historic climate data.

I suspect that the BAMWX forecast will be off by an average of 10° or more for these four cities and can't rule out a miss by more than 20°. I also expect that BAMWX will never verify its extreme idea.

This outlook will be verified here and on X.

 

[michsnowfreak]

38 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

DT was on the Joe Cioffi show this evening talking about the pattern. He loves a big change to colder and snowier at the end of this month and next month .

https://www.youtube.com/live/mWL0xRd1dSs?si=Yh5-ifZrT0JFeNSx

Once again 2013-14 & 2014-15 are mentioned.

[GaWx]

18 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

This is an example of the hype that I was criticizing earlier:

Now, let's take a look at the BAMWX extreme forecast and historic data for four cities shown in the more extreme parts of the map: Chicago, Great Falls, Indianapolis, and Madison. In three cases, the cold would be unprecedented for the period in question.

While it could be colder than normal, the probability of the kind of cold shown on the map is extremely low. Moreover, one is dealing with a timeframe more than five weeks into the future where model skill is far less than climatology.

Considering the timeframe, the historic data, and the smaller pool of Northern Hemisphere deep cold in the contemporary area, the kind of widespread extreme weekly anomalies shown on the map are exceptionally unlikely. Posting such a map is reckless. Moreover, even as BAMWX focuses on Indiana, the map is disconnected from Indianapolis' historic climate data.

I suspect that the BAMWX forecast will be off by an average of 10° or more for these four cities and can't rule out a miss by more than 20°. I also expect that BAMWX will never verify its extreme idea.

This outlook will be verified here and on X.

 

 The very next WB CFS ens run (12Z) map for the same period was ~25F warmer at Chicago, Great Falls and Madison and was ~23 warmer at Indianapolis:

[George001]

2 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 The very next WB CFS ens run (12Z) map for the same period was ~25F warmer at Chicago, Great Falls and Madison and was ~23 warmer at Indianapolis:

Yeah too far out

[GaWx]

Per Joe D’Aleo at WB: “Strat warm favored in west QBO near solar max”

 I checked it and by golly I think he has a point:

Solar DJF 135+/west QBO:

57-8: SSW 1/31/58

59-60: SSW 1/17/60

69-70: SSW 1/2/70

78-9: SSW 2/22/79

80-1: SSW 2/6/81

90-1: no SSW

99-00: SSW 3/20/00

01-02: SSW  12/31/01, 2/18/02

 
-So, of these 8 high solar/+QBO winters, 7 had at least one major SSW and one had two! 

- earliest 12/31

- 3 in Jan

- 3 in Feb 

- 1 in Mar

- So, perhaps one will actually be likely this winter should DJF SSN be 135+.

 

SSN: https://www.sidc.be/SILSO/DATA/SN_m_tot_V2.0.txt

[Stormchaserchuck1]

14 hours ago, snowman19 said:

Color me very skeptical. -ENSO/+QBO/high solar is the LEAST likely combination to produce a major SSWE. Not saying that it’s impossible obviously, but the likely hood of a major SSWE is not good at all IMO @Stormchaserchuck1

It's not impossible, but a +QBO/La Nina state does favor a cold 10mb about 75% of the time. Last year for example, we had -QBO/El Nino and there were 4 Stratosphere warmings. 2 years ago it was +QBO/La Nina and 10mb stayed mostly cold/

+QBO is strong right now. Here is what we've seen at 10mb for the start of cold season

vs +QBO correlation

[40/70 Benchmark]

20 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

I don't agree. Even language similar to this would be helpful: "The outcome represents our best judgment of how the pattern will evolve, but at such time frames significant changes are still possible..."

Don, I think its pretty obvious that any forecast issued is said forecaster's " best judgment of how the pattern will evolve"....that is tacit. Its also commen sense that any long range forecast is subject to change, but I think most do explictly state as such. I feel like you are being overly fastidious with respect to semantics for the sake of disagreement. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

20 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

No. If one wants to forecast, one should. IMO, making the effort is worth it, as it can lead to insights and breakthroughs over time.

However, forecasters who provide information to the general public should explicitly state the degree of uncertainty that is inherent in long-range forecasts. We, here, are aware of model limitations, the general public isn't.

They should also verify their forecasts. The gap between the public's perceptions of forecasting skill and actual forecasting skill results from factors including the public's unfamiliarity with risk. Thus, if someone posts on, let's say X, that a very snowy pattern or blowtorch pattern will occur in late December and the outcome falls somewhere in between, the public only recalls the forecast that failed. It's even worse if the opposite outcome occurs. And because the forecasting language was definitive, the public makes no allowances for forecasting risk. They simply assume that meteorologists can't accurately forecast.

In particular, the social media accounts that hype events--hype leads to greater social media engagement--are particularly damaging to the profession. By definition, every event can't be notable, much less extreme. Such events are low probability or very low probability events. Portraying events as extreme or referencing extreme events without providing sufficient context does a lot of damage.

I believe the CPC has chosen to stick with probabilistic forecasts, because such forecasts convey the degree of uncertainty involved with various outcomes. Deterministic forecasts provide concrete numbers for outcomes but sacrifice the degree of risk. One can bridge the gap by conveying information about uncertainty when making a deterministic forecast.

My point applies to those who are actually forecasting professionally for the public on a professional basis.

I see what you are saying....I can't stand when long range snow maps are posted....or any for that matter. However, in the case of Bamwx, that post that was referrred to as "hype" followed up a video of approximately 15 minutes in length that described in great detail why they felt a colder shift was likely. That long range weekly was then added as a follow up to illustrate the expressed thought. You need to consider it in the proper context....

I guess I agree with your overall point, but not the source you chose to illustrate it. I also think that when you take the time to put forth a seasonal product, like Bamwx does, posting long range guidance that either supports or deviates from the previously stated position is more palatable. People have lives...not every post on social media can be a war and peace novel...its not practical, nor are those mediums really intended for that. Perhaps there should be a disclaimer on every post that the data may not ultimately reflect what will actually happen? But then again, would said disclaimer even be paid any mind by the vast majority of those using these platforms like "X", that are esstentially an assembly line of fragmented thoughts catered towards those with attention spans shorter than a NYC winter , and a proclivity for instant gratification every bit as immense as the blizzards that they crave.

Your issue is with contemporary society and its projected onto long range forecasters.

[40/70 Benchmark]

20 hours ago, leo2000 said:

Not as cold as weatherbell but the lastest run had just gotten colder for the east. 

 

https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=cfs-avg&region=us&pkg=T2maMean&runtime=2024120506&fh=1002

You need to consider this within the context of the modern climate...we aren't getting a -8 month, Larry....anything below normal over the east coast for a monthly mean in the middle of winter is pretty extraordinary....especailly realtive to the general consensus leading in.