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

[Typhoon Tip]

31 minutes ago, wxsniss said:

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)

i have cited papers that describe this, both empirically and theoretically, in the past. 

this a public forum.  not an academic circle.  i get it that those efforts were either unseen and/or ignored.   ... most likely because it doesn't fit with people's internal narratives, wants and delusions.  not a problem.   no one in here is ultimately at risk of accreditation.  this is a support group anyway.  lol

also, there is a reason commerical airlines are seting air-land speed records on west to east flights over the last 20 years ..for more frequently then those types or records were typically broken.

you know ..just at an acme sort of vision, you know what's going to happen  ... in some many 10s or hundred years or whatever it takes, the polar regions of the planet will have eventually warmed enough that the total gradient goes back the other way ... and the balanced flow everywhere become less aggressive. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 minute ago, Typhoon Tip said:

i have cited papers that describe this, both empirically and theoretically, in the past. 

this a public forum.  not an academic circle.  i get it that those efforts were either unseen and/or ignored.   ... most likely because it doesn't fit with people's internal narratives, wants and delusions.  not a problem.   no one in here is ultimately at risk of accreditation.  this is a support group anyway.  lol

also, there is a reason commerical airlines are seting air-land speed records on west to east flights over the last 20 years ..for more frequently then those types or records were typically broken.

you know ..just at an acme sort of vision, you what's going to happen  ... in some many 10s or hundred years or whatever it take, the polar regions of the planet will have eventually warmed enough that the total gradient goes back the other way ... and the balanced flow everyone become less aggressive. 

While I do think that there is some truth to this, I also believe that there is an element of projection at play here, too.

[Typhoon Tip]

32 minutes ago, Henry's Weather said:

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

gotta go back to elementary physics on that one.  

everything in nature happens because A ≠ B    ... if A = B  nothing happens.

when A ≠ B then either A --> B      or       B --> A   ...    the strength in which "-->"  occurs, for the purpose of this context, is dictated by the thermodynamic gradient - or the steepness between heat source and sink

the gradient between the polar regions, and the equator. 

 ... the polar regions are warming faster than the equatorial region... but, they have a long way to go - below a threshold ( of sorts) still.  because they have such a deep hole in the total global thermal budget to begin with, the gradient - for now - is steepened by the regions outside of the polar regions.   there's compendium of examples of how this manifests in global pattern and wind behaviors -

[SJonesWX]

30 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

 

Sully, remember when I said I would kill you last? I lied.

Scooter, remember when I said I would get you a snow storm? I lied.

[Typhoon Tip]

28 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

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. 

i'm not 'being defensive'  ... where are you getting that impression heh

no, i'm literally giving you the objective numbers and telling you it doesn't conceptually fit.   look, you made a blanket statement that our woes were the pacific - that's not true. 

it's not.

that's not me being defensive.

[UnitedWx]

35 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

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

That is the absolute best analysis I've seen here in a while, sounds like you're ready to work for pick your "favorite" media outlet Seriously i can't stop LMFAO

[Typhoon Tip]

46 minutes ago, weathafella said:

Are there any peer reviewed journal articles supporting this premise?

yes

[UnitedWx]

43 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

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.

I kid and push back myself, but it's likely some of both are true mixed in with dumb luck and a calculation that we don't understand yet. We had so many above average mixed with near average years the last couple decades that it's easy to try and find fault with why it isn't snowing here right now. IMO whatever the CC part of the equation ends up being, it's just as likely to create more snowy winters in the future.

[40/70 Benchmark]

7 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

i'm not 'being defensive'  ... where are you getting that impression heh

no, i'm literally giving you the objective numbers and telling you it doesn't conceptually fit.   look, you made a blanket statement that our woes were the pacific - that's not true. 

it's not.

that's not me being defensive.

Okay, care to present empirical evidence that RNA/+WPO/+EPO isn't hostile??

Here is the WPO correlation for starters...does this look favorable for NE cold &/or snow??

 

[weatherwiz]

12 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

gotta go back to elementary physics on that one.  

everything in nature happens because A ≠ B    ... if A = B  nothing happens.

when A ≠ B then either A --> B      or       B --> A   ...    the strength in which "-->"  occurs, for the purpose of this context, is dictated by the thermodynamic gradient - or the steepness between heat source and sink

the gradient between the polar regions, and the equator. 

 ... the polar regions are warming faster than the equatorial region... but, they have a long way to go - below a threshold ( of sorts) still.  because they have such a deep hole in the total global thermal budget to begin with, the gradient - for now - is steepened by the regions outside of the polar regions.   there's compendium of examples of how this manifests in global pattern and wind behaviors -

Well said, this explains that extremely well. 

I remember we had these discussions in my Oceanography class but because the polar regions are warming faster than the equatorial region, this is having an impact on the Earth's energy budget. Now, it's important to understand that there is always a surplus of net energy at the equator and a net deficit at the poles - hence the Hadley Cell circulation which transfers energy to the poles and vice versa. 

However, we're building up more energy in and around the tropics region and I know there are some discussions out there on this and my professor theorized this too but this could be a factor in why we've seen several tropical systems recently explode in certain areas of the tropics. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

30 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

i have cited papers that describe this, both empirically and theoretically, in the past. 

this a public forum.  not an academic circle.  i get it that those efforts were either unseen and/or ignored.   ... most likely because it doesn't fit with people's internal narratives, wants and delusions.  not a problem.   no one in here is ultimately at risk of accreditation.  this is a support group anyway.  lol

also, there is a reason commerical airlines are seting air-land speed records on west to east flights over the last 20 years ..for more frequently then those types or records were typically broken.

you know ..just at an acme sort of vision, you what's going to happen  ... in some many 10s or hundred years or whatever it take, the polar regions of the planet will have eventually warmed enough that the total gradient goes back the other way ... and the balanced flow everywhere become less aggressive. 

This is a defensive posture.

Sorry.

It just is-

[40/70 Benchmark]

This looks prime for overrunning snow and major east coast winter storms...

 

[Henry's Weather]

18 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

gotta go back to elementary physics on that one.  

everything in nature happens because A ≠ B    ... if A = B  nothing happens.

when A ≠ B then either A --> B      or       B --> A   ...    the strength in which "-->"  occurs, for the purpose of this context, is dictated by the thermodynamic gradient - or the steepness between heat source and sink

the gradient between the polar regions, and the equator. 

 ... the polar regions are warming faster than the equatorial region... but, they have a long way to go - below a threshold ( of sorts) still.  because they have such a deep hole in the total global thermal budget to begin with, the gradient - for now - is steepened by the regions outside of the polar regions.   there's compendium of examples of how this manifests in global pattern and wind behaviors -

And even though the poles heat faster, as temp increases, the same delta T is a larger delta kinetic energy increase? Which means that delta Kinetic energy is higher, which means that the motive force for redistributing kinetic energy is higher -> faster circulation?

[40/70 Benchmark]

9 minutes ago, UnitedWx said:

I kid and push back myself, but it's likely some of both are true mixed in with dumb luck and a calculation that we don't understand yet. We had so many above average mixed with near average years the last couple decades that it's easy to try and find fault with why it isn't snowing here right now. IMO whatever the CC part of the equation ends up being, it's just as likely to create more snowy winters in the future.

Absolutely agree.

[Kitz Craver]

3 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

This looks prime for overrunning snow and major east coast winter storms...

 

Oh god, another primed pattern… I know that’s what it’s showing and no offense. But, I just can’t… it needs to be IMBY for me to give any fucks.

[weatherwiz]

Now that we've evolved in the field from a resource perspective with a greater slew of tools, knowledge, and databases I think for research purposes we need to move away from comparing everything to monthly plots and monthly averages. We need to analyze and study these periods of a sub-monthly level (weekly, bi-weekly). I think doing this, we could increase accuracy and confidence substantially. 

I think we're too accustomed to just throwing in a month or season into composites for quick and easy results. For example, we could take the 5 snowiest (or coldest or warmest) months on record for the month of January and get a quick H5 composite...then we could do it for the 5 least snowiest (or coldest or warmest)...and do the same thing. Now in doing that, we probably would see drastic differences...but that is in the mean. That is not telling us what happened in between and that means more than an averaged pattern, IMO.

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 minutes ago, Kitz Craver said:

Oh god, another primed pattern… I know that’s what it’s showing and no offense. But, I just can’t… it needs to be IMBY for me to give any fucks.

Did you actually look at the composite? Its the last 9 winter seasons and its terrible for east coast cold and snow.

[Great Snow 1717]

Just now, weatherwiz said:

Now that we've evolved in the field from a resource perspective with a greater slew of tools, knowledge, and databases I think for research purposes we need to move away from comparing everything to monthly plots and monthly averages. We need to analyze and study these periods of a sub-monthly level (weekly, bi-weekly). I think doing this, we could increase accuracy and confidence substantially. 

I think we're too accustomed to just throwing in a month or season into composites for quick and easy results. For example, we could take the 5 snowiest (or coldest or warmest) months on record for the month of January and get a quick H5 composite...then we could do it for the 5 least snowiest (or coldest or warmest)...and do the same thing. Now in doing that, we probably would see drastic differences...but that is in the mean. That is not telling us what happened in between and that means more than an averaged pattern, IMO.

..as we have seen in the world of baseball having too much data/tools can be a bad thing because it leads to overanalyzing..

[Kitz Craver]

5 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Did you actually look at the composite? Its the last 9 winter seasons and its terrible for east coast cold and snow.

Nope. Lol, currently at the bar drinking tequila. I glanced and reacted. Lmfao

[tunafish]

1 hour ago, WinterWolf said:

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

 

[Kitz Craver]

Yeah, just hit the little arrow to reveal the  suck. Lol

[weatherwiz]

1 minute ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

..as we have seen in the world of baseball having too much data/tools can be a bad thing because it leads to overanalyzing..

It certainly can and one can but that is where it is up to someone analyzing data to make distinctions. I don't think too much data is a bad thing but it can be bad if data starts becoming misused, misinterpreted, or manipulated. 

In the sense of weather, alot of just broken down into monthly averages. For example, look at the teleconnections...monthly NAO, monthly AO, monthly PNA, etc. Why is it done this way? I don't know the answer (probably more than one) but I would hedge because it's easier, cleaner, and more organized. But how everything averages up in the monthly...over time that probably leads to a story which isn't an accurate assessment. 

 

[Great Snow 1717]

1 minute ago, weatherwiz said:

It certainly can and one can but that is where it is up to someone analyzing data to make distinctions. I don't think too much data is a bad thing but it can be bad if data starts becoming misused, misinterpreted, or manipulated. 

In the sense of weather, alot of just broken down into monthly averages. For example, look at the teleconnections...monthly NAO, monthly AO, monthly PNA, etc. Why is it done this way? I don't know the answer (probably more than one) but I would hedge because it's easier, cleaner, and more organized. But how everything averages up in the monthly...over time that probably leads to a story which isn't an accurate assessment. 

 

but not everyone will analyze the data in the same way...and too much data can "swamp" a person's ability to properly analyze the data. 

[weatherwiz]

1 minute ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

but not everyone will analyze the data in the same way...and too much data can "swamp" a person's ability to properly analyze the data. 

Gotcha, I see where the disconnect here is. When I am talking about data I am also including the growth of the database just due to time. For example, for those who like to look at snowfall breakdowns based on ENSO...this winter will add to the database for La Nina winters. 

But that's the thing with data...there is alot of it out there and its up to the person to decide which data to use and how they want to use it. But we can't just discount data and tools because there is too much of it. We need to adapt because this is an ever evolving field. 

[dendrite]

14 minutes ago, tunafish said:

 

“Bad wolfie! You go poopy outside.”

[Great Snow 1717]

2 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

Gotcha, I see where the disconnect here is. When I am talking about data I am also including the growth of the database just due to time. For example, for those who like to look at snowfall breakdowns based on ENSO...this winter will add to the database for La Nina winters. 

But that's the thing with data...there is alot of it out there and its up to the person to decide which data to use and how they want to use it. But we can't just discount data and tools because there is too much of it. We need to adapt because this is an ever evolving field. 

..the baseball statgeeks essentially said the same thing...and it has created a mess...

[tunafish]

8 minutes ago, dendrite said:

“Bad wolfie! You go poopy outside.”

 

[Kitz Craver]

4 minutes ago, tunafish said:

 

Where do you get this shit dude?

[weatherwiz]

6 minutes ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

..the baseball statgeeks essentially said the same thing...and it has created a mess...

True but our understanding of weather is built on our understanding of physics and how the atmosphere works. There are laws and principles which we can easily prove and you take those laws and principle and apply them. All these stats in baseball are just a means to give a valuation to a player. It's about trying to find the "best" player available for as little money possible. 

[tunafish]

5 minutes ago, Kitz Craver said:

Where do you get this shit dude?

AI, babyyyyy

(Last one promise)