Tracking either the biggest storm to affect at a regional scale since perhaps 2013 ... or, a complete whiff. Pick-em'

[CoastalWx]

I can see the Miller B argument, but otherwise I feel like we’ve had storms come from all over the place… We just have had shitty air masses preceding  it.

[40/70 Benchmark]

9 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

i get it .. but my point was, when do we get the overrunning?     'cause multi- year result set sorta suggests not often enough to matter

the flow compression means fast.  everything speeds up.  the basal flow rate.  the waves themselves.  everything has a shorter residence time in any given location. 

that also makes it difficult to stasis an overrunning scenario for very long, either.   trying to get you to see that without my saying so - ha

No, I understood just fine...my point is that I don't think that the last 9 years are a great sample because it's been so damn warm due to the awful Pacific. 

[Great Snow 1717]

1 minute ago, CoastalWx said:

Are they? Because we’ve had a lot of very wet winters recently, so the storms are coming from somewhere. Many of our cutters have originated from the southwest.

Well that would make for a very interesting case study if we had all of the data to compare storm tracks from the past to current storm tracks.

..and please note I am speaking of snowstorms not rain storms. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

I can see the Miller B argument, but otherwise I feel like we’ve had storms come from all over the place… We just have had shitty air masses preceding  it.

And the shitty air masses make overrunning less likely, too.

[SJonesWX]

8 minutes ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

..lack of interest at some schools because of the lack of snow. "Fake" snow just doesn't cut it for a lot of people.

that is fair

[CoastalWx]

3 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

And the shitty air masses make overrunning less likely, too.

Just give me a high to the north and an approaching system from the south. 

[weathafella]

2 minutes ago, SJonesWX said:

that is fair

Yeah in California it doesn’t matter-just because it was 70 and sunny in my yard didn’t deter me from driving a few hours to deeper snow than you’d ever see in the east.  But for New England, lack of snow in one’s yard is a deterrent.

[Typhoon Tip]

6 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

No, I understood just fine...my point is that I don't think that the last 9 years are a great sample because it's been so damn warm due to the awful Pacific. 

what is meant by awful Pacific, tho -

we just agreed that apparent compression/shearing/velocity soaking is taking place in both neg and pos pnas and regardless of epos.  

look, it's not the pacific.

its the planetary medium.  that's just it - sorry

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

what is meant by awful Pacific, tho -

we just agreed that apparent compression/shearing/velocity soaking is taking place in both neg and pos pnas and regardless of epos.  

look, it's not the pacific.

its the planetary medium.  that's just it - sorry

I don't agree-sorry.

You are going to get a lower frequency of prolific overrunning snowstorms in a -RNA/+EPO/+WPO pattern, which has been the predominate paradigm since 2015....that was the case in 1763, and it's the case now.

Take 2013-2014 for instance.....the fast flow wasn't prohibitive of overrunning that season, was it?

[WinterWolf]

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I don't agree-sorry.

You are going to get a lower frequency of prolific overrunning snowstorms in a -RNA/+EPO/+WPO pattern....that was the case in 1763, and it's the case now.

Thank You!  

[weathafella]

3 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

what is meant by awful Pacific, tho -

we just agreed that apparent compression/shearing/velocity soaking is taking place in both neg and pos pnas and regardless of epos.  

look, it's not the pacific.

its the planetary medium.  that's just it - sorry

Are there any peer reviewed journal articles supporting this premise?

[40/70 Benchmark]

9 minutes ago, weathafella said:

Are there any peer reviewed journal articles supporting this premise?

I'm not even so much impugning the premise as I am merely arguing that there is another more obvious cause that is perfectly viable.

[weathafella]

1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I'm not even so much impugning the premise so much as I am merely arguing that there is another more obvious cause that is perfectly viable.

The implication that the pacific doesn’t matter is a big flag to me hence my inquiry.

[WinterWolf]

I just took an extra shit today…I think it’s gotta be due to CC. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

Just now, WinterWolf said:

I just took an extra shit today…I think it’s gotta be due to CC. 

The fast flow down your GI

[WinterWolf]

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

The fast flow down your GI

[Snowcrazed71]

24 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

You’ve been teetering for a few weeks…take a break.

Lol... Maybe. Deleted my post. I think it's the affects of the anesthesia talking LOL. 

I'll be just fine. Things will change. We'll have our year at some point. And I agree, sometimes a break is good.

[wxsniss]

28 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

i get it .. but my point was, when do we get the overrunning?     'cause multi- year result set sorta suggests not often enough to matter

the flow compression means fast.  everything speeds up.  the basal flow rate.  the waves themselves.  everything has a shorter residence time in any given location. 

that also makes it difficult to stasis an overrunning scenario for very long, either.   trying to get you to see that without my saying so - ha

Loving this discussion all.

Tip, the bolded above seems like something you can objectively quantify and then show an association that supports this attribution... do we have data on "basal flow rate" in the past 5 years vs. other years and how that relates to cyclogenesis / snowfall?

(Asking not out of skepticism, I've always found this a compelling theory)

[WxWatcher007]

17 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Just give me a high to the north and an approaching system from the south. 

[Henry's Weather]

26 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

This is why sometimes I like being brutally honest. I used to be all positive, but to me it’s not reality.

Better to be negative on here than with loved ones I bet

[CoastalWx]

1 minute ago, WxWatcher007 said:

 

[CoastalWx]

Just now, Henry's Weather said:

Better to be negative on here than with loved ones I bet

It's not negative, just telling it how it is.  Venting sometimes can be negative...I am guilty of that. Passed that now.

[ORH_wxman]

10 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I don't agree-sorry.

You are going to get a lower frequency of prolific overrunning snowstorms in a -RNA/+EPO/+WPO pattern, which has been the predominate paradigm since 2015....that was the case in 1763, and it's the case now.

Take 2013-2014 for instance.....the fast flow wasn't prohibitive of overrunning that season, was it?

Both can be true. We have a faster flow which maybe makes certain types of setups less frequent….but that maybe only explains a small percentage. Getting a +EPO might explain the majority of it. 
 

It’s like the snowfall argument…it’s an empirical fact we warmed between 1950-2020 but our snowfall empirically increased as well. So something else was offsetting the warming…was it extra water vapor? Yes, that explained prob a small percentage of it…but most of it was likely explained by natural variability and we just managed to get into a nice pattern of -AOs and -EPOs during that 2000s/2010s snow blitz. The extra 7% of water vapor in the atmosphere probably enhanced the nice pattern but it didn’t cause it. 

[Henry's Weather]

Just now, CoastalWx said:

It's not negative, just telling it how it is.  Venting sometimes can be negative...I am guilty of that. Passed that now.

Yeah, reality can be negative for sure. Probably needs out-letting somewhere, relatively harmless to do so (not saying you do it in particular) on an online weather forum.

[Hailstoned]

7 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

I just took an extra shit today…I think it’s gotta be due to CC. 

Rather, denial of it is due to a bad case of constipation...

[Henry's Weather]

18 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

what is meant by awful Pacific, tho -

we just agreed that apparent compression/shearing/velocity soaking is taking place in both neg and pos pnas and regardless of epos.  

look, it's not the pacific.

its the planetary medium.  that's just it - sorry

Mechanistically, how would CC cause a faster flow? Simply more kinetic energy available due to higher temps globally?

[Typhoon Tip]

5 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I don't agree-sorry.

You are going to get a lower frequency of prolific overrunning snowstorms in a -RNA/+EPO/+WPO pattern, which has been the predominate paradigm since 2015....that was the case in 1763, and it's the case now.

Take 2013-2014 for instance.....the fast flow wasn't prohibitive of overrunning that season, was it?

predominate does not mean always, mate

your negating the +pna, there have been those 60% just eyeballing this from cpc's records.  granted this is every month - i did not parse out just djf. feel free to do so.  but did it ever occur to you that global shift in climate might also favor the -rna basal state?  

2015   0.61   0.59  -0.23  -0.15  -0.16  -0.17   0.76   0.08  -0.92   1.78  -0.19   0.78
2016   2.02   1.48   0.73   0.87  -1.06  -0.70   1.02  -0.88   0.18   1.24   1.52  -0.35
2017   0.28   0.18   0.27   0.40  -0.31   1.01   1.86   0.23  -0.33  -0.40  -2.06   0.89
2018   0.40  -1.03  -0.89  -0.91  -1.34   0.51  -0.37   1.27   1.44   0.21   0.24   0.86
2019   0.83  -1.08   0.25  -0.61  -0.29   0.12   1.11   1.18   2.00  -1.02  -0.06   0.18
2020  -0.24   0.17  -2.17  -1.18   0.21   0.70   1.73   1.82   0.75  -1.13   0.24   1.58
2021   0.19  -0.31  -0.97  -1.05  -1.35   0.67   0.56   0.95   0.44   1.13   0.72  -2.56
2022   1.01   0.66   0.13  -0.74  -0.83  -0.31   2.54   0.79   0.21   0.17  -0.73  -0.66
2023   0.21  -0.64  -1.63  -0.42  -0.86   0.69   1.15   0.45   1.06   1.20   0.55   1.21
2024   0.45   0.09   0.45  -0.65  -2.74   0.97   2.60  -1.01   1.34   0.04   0.06   1.70

if you want the storm behavior-assumptive correlation to those indices to be fair, you have to consider both sides.

we say in one hand the cc is real.  but then refuse the viability of any given storm system, nor their over-arcing pattern, as behaving accordingly.  

[40/70 Benchmark]

10 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Both can be true. We have a faster flow which maybe makes certain types of setups less frequent….but that maybe only explains a small percentage. Getting a +EPO might explain the majority of it. 
 

It’s like the snowfall argument…it’s an empirical fact we warmed between 1950-2020 but our snowfall empirically increased as well. So something else was offsetting the warming…was it extra water vapor? Yes, that explained prob a small percentage of it…but most of it was likely explained by natural variability and we just managed to get into a nice pattern of -AOs and -EPOs during that 2000s/2010s snow blitz. The extra 7% of water vapor in the atmosphere probably enhanced the nice pattern but it didn’t cause it. 

No, I agree...all I am intimating, and he appears to have become defensive. All I am saying is that I don't think this most recent 9 year stretch is a great period of time to test that theory because the baseline pattern was so awful, anyway. I'm not saying that identical patterns wouldn't necessarily yield less overrunning than they did 70 years ago...they probably would. But we need to remain mindful overattribution. 

[WxWatcher007]

4 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

 

The models to all of SNE once we thought there was hope for a storm.

Everyone knows where I stand. Nothing else to add. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

6 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

predominate does not mean always, mate

your negating the +pna, there have been those 60% just eyeballing this from cpc's records.  granted this is every month - i did not parse out just djf. feel free to do so.  but did it ever occur to you that global shift in climate might also favor the -rna basal state?  

2015   0.61   0.59  -0.23  -0.15  -0.16  -0.17   0.76   0.08  -0.92   1.78  -0.19   0.78
2016   2.02   1.48   0.73   0.87  -1.06  -0.70   1.02  -0.88   0.18   1.24   1.52  -0.35
2017   0.28   0.18   0.27   0.40  -0.31   1.01   1.86   0.23  -0.33  -0.40  -2.06   0.89
2018   0.40  -1.03  -0.89  -0.91  -1.34   0.51  -0.37   1.27   1.44   0.21   0.24   0.86
2019   0.83  -1.08   0.25  -0.61  -0.29   0.12   1.11   1.18   2.00  -1.02  -0.06   0.18
2020  -0.24   0.17  -2.17  -1.18   0.21   0.70   1.73   1.82   0.75  -1.13   0.24   1.58
2021   0.19  -0.31  -0.97  -1.05  -1.35   0.67   0.56   0.95   0.44   1.13   0.72  -2.56
2022   1.01   0.66   0.13  -0.74  -0.83  -0.31   2.54   0.79   0.21   0.17  -0.73  -0.66
2023   0.21  -0.64  -1.63  -0.42  -0.86   0.69   1.15   0.45   1.06   1.20   0.55   1.21
2024   0.45   0.09   0.45  -0.65  -2.74   0.97   2.60  -1.01   1.34   0.04   0.06   1.70

if you want the storm behavior-assumptive correlation to those indices to be fair, you have to consider both sides.

we say in one hand the cc is real.  but then refuse the viability of any given storm system, nor their over-arcing pattern, as behaving accordingly.  

Yes, and I am on record as having stated that if that global tendency doesn't shift by the end of the decade or shortly thereafter, then I will entertain that as a realistic possibility..but we aren't there yet.