February 2025

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 minute ago, brooklynwx99 said:

i mean, it is, but 48 hours is a bit much. the models capitulated and it totally blew, but it was at 120-144 hours out. that happens. we're in agreement that it would be a different story if we were inside of three days

god, i can't wait for an effective El Nino. hopefully next year

120 hours.....capitulation was Saturday. Saturday AM everyone woke up naked in a hot tub with their laptops in hand....by Sunday AM they were all lying tits up.

[brooklynwx99]

18 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I the crux of the issue is that while many of your claims likely have at least some validity, most view it has natural variability and that should be the baseline assumption for now. I know you ultimately assert that you are open to new information moving forward and are not resigned to this being permanent, but I think this issue is that your tone seems to suggest that your baseline assumption is that it will be permanent moving forward. Maybe I am off base, but that is how it comes across to me.

yup, I will reassess in 2030 or so. the sample size is just too small and we could get blasted a few times to close the decade for all anyone knows. people also thought the massive WC ridges from 2013-15 were going to be the new norm. how laughable that seems now

[brooklynwx99]

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

120 hours.....capitulation was Saturday. Saturday AM everyone woke up naked in a hot tub with their laptops in hand....by Sunday AM they were all lying tits up.

yeah, trust me, it was one of the more stunning model collapses in the last several years. absolutely sucked

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

yup, I will reassess in 2030 or so. the sample size is just too small and we could get blasted a few times to close the decade for all anyone knows. people also thought the massive WC ridges from 2013-15 were going to be the new norm. how laughable that seems now

Yes...Chris can hold me to this. The early 2030s are a very imporant test for me.

[40/70 Benchmark]

Just now, brooklynwx99 said:

yeah, trust me, it was one of the more stunning model collapses in the last several years. absolutely sucked

You could see it coming a mile away given similaritities out west to past instances this season...most prominently 1/11.

[JTA66]

7 hours ago, MJO812 said:

Gfs is a weenie run. Another storm in early March.

If you don't think models should run past 120 hours, why are you looking at models past 120 hours??

[jm1220]

I do think though that the Pacific SSTs have shifted to an orientation that’s especially hostile for snow here. Ever since that huge boiling SST area popped east of Japan we’ve had this zonked Pacific Jet that’s destroyed almost every major snow chance for NYC. I think that will have to change before we’re really back in the game. In the CC era we live in maybe a competing marine heatwave has to pop up that mutes that one out. There will have to be warm water comparatively in the E Pacific. 

[Brian5671]

7 hours ago, MJO812 said:

Because the pattern is ripe. No one is telling you to track anything.  It's a weather forum. 

It's ripe for small/moderate events.  We still have the same issues present that have prevented the big dog.

[MJO812]

43 minutes ago, JetsPens87 said:

Please re read your post.

 

FRIDAY. From Fri everyone latched onto a few crazy runs at almost a WEEK out. That's their fault.

 

No respectable met ever called for a HECS that early.

Every model had the storm and showed a big storm. A storm one way or another happens when every model shows something.  I am not sure when the last time was that the models shower a storm and they all lost it. 

 

 

[MJO812]

18 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

yeah, trust me, it was one of the more stunning model collapses in the last several years. absolutely sucked

Especially with the Euro and EPS. It was really consistent.  

The GFS also showed a storm for a few runs but quickly lost it.  When it did , people were saying how it's bias was in play and that was a legit conclusion but it was right.

[Brian5671]

1 minute ago, MJO812 said:

Every model had the storm and showed a big storm. A storm one way or another happens when every model shows something.  I am not sure when the last time was that the models shower a storm and they all lost it. 

 

 

They didn't really lose it-it's still there-just 250 miles south of where they had it.   Models were overamped in the mid-range.

[EastonSN+]

16 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

I do think though that the Pacific SSTs have shifted to an orientation that’s especially hostile for snow here. Ever since that huge boiling SST area popped east of Japan we’ve had this zonked Pacific Jet that’s destroyed almost every major snow chance for NYC. I think that will have to change before we’re really back in the game. In the CC era we live in maybe a competing marine heatwave has to pop up that mutes that one out. There will have to be warm water comparatively in the E Pacific. 

Or the screaming warm Indian Ocean which has phases 1 and 2 of the mjo which are cold. Doesn't seem to be talked about or acknowledged for some reason.

[Feen]

any potential system in the near future cause this one is obviously no bueno?

[EastonSN+]

23 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yes...Chris can hold me to this. The early 2030s are a very imporant test for me.

I have been tracking Central Parks snowfall total starting with the 2018-2019 season and comparing it to the 30-year Central Park snowfall drought average from 1970 through 1999 which was a little over 21 inches. Central Park is currently a little over 15 inches for this period, however, the 1970s had very low snowfall for Central Park outside of 2 years towards the end of the decade. This snowfall drought for Central Park can last a lot longer, however I agree by the early 2030s if we're seeing the same thing over and over again then we have to consider. 

In that 30-year time span Central Park had only five above average snowfall seasons, and 14 of them were below 19 inches. Central Park already had one above average snowfall season in this period so on track in that regard. If we get another 1978 type snowfall distribution then the average will be comparable. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

I have been tracking Central Parks snowfall total starting with the 2018-2019 season and comparing it to the 30-year Central Park snowfall drought average from 1970 through 1999 which was a little over 21 inches. Central Park is currently a little over 15 inches for this period, however, the 1970s had very low snowfall for Central Park outside of 2 years towards the end of the decade. This snowfall drought for Central Park can last a lot longer, however I agree by the early 2030s if we're seeing the same thing over and over again then we have to consider. 

In that 30-year time span Central Park had only five above average snowfall seasons, and 14 of them were below 19 inches. Central Park already had one above average snowfall season in this period so on track in that regard. If we get another 1978 type snowfall distribution then the average will be comparable. 

The early 2030's isn't an arbitrarily chosen point, either....I chose that point because it should represent a crucial point of inflection for our climate given the fact that the Pacific should have switched to the warm phase and we should be near solar min. If this regime sticks thorugh that, then something is up.

[EastonSN+]

1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

The early 2030's isn't an arbitrarily chosen point, either....I chose that point because it should represent a crucial point of inflection for our climate given the fact that the Pacific should have switched to the warm phase and we should be near solar min. If this regime sticks thorugh that, then something is up.

I have been wondering how the rising Indian ocean temperatures will offset other rising ocean temperatures as the Indian Ocean houses phases one and two which are cold phases for our area. Obviously if the waters off Japan continue unabated and are attributing to the faster jet our storm track will be in Jeopardy, however, purely from a temperature average perspective the rising Indian Ocean temps should offset the warmer phases impacted by the Indonesian water temperatures.

[JetsPens87]

21 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

Every model had the storm and showed a big storm. A storm one way or another happens when every model shows something.  I am not sure when the last time was that the models shower a storm and they all lost it. 

 

 

And this is happening one way or another...

 

Just not for us. Don't get what you're saying. They never had it for more than a few cycles. I don't really find this to be that stunning of a model collapse when it was over 5 days out.

[brooklynwx99]

4 minutes ago, JetsPens87 said:

And this is happening one way or another...

 

Just not for us. Don't get what you're saying. They never had it for more than a few cycles. I don't really find this to be that stunning of a model collapse when it was over 5 days out.

i saw people even comparing this to Jan 2015. that was on a totally different level of fail. not even close

[Brian5671]

1 minute ago, brooklynwx99 said:

i saw people even comparing this to Jan 2015. that was on a totally different level of fail. not even close

yeah that failed as the event was getting underway....

[EastonSN+]

Just now, brooklynwx99 said:

i saw people even comparing this to Jan 2015. that was on a totally different level of fail. not even close

2015 was more that the national weather service did not change their forecast until the storm was underway. 

Only the nam and the euro had the storm with us in the bullseye up until the last day. All other models had the bullseye in Eastern New England. In that event half the people were convinced by the Euro and Nam while the others were for all the rest of the models. 

The fact that the Euro and the nam were on their own was a huge red flag.

[JetsPens87]

1 minute ago, brooklynwx99 said:

i saw people even comparing this to Jan 2015. that was on a totally different level of fail. not even close

It's just hard for me to get worked up over a miss from 5 days out. It would have taken another 24 hours of model cycling to have made this really credible in the first place IMO.

[qg_omega]

1 minute ago, brooklynwx99 said:

i saw people even comparing this to Jan 2015. that was on a totally different level of fail. not even close

What fail?  Most models when bias adjusted showed nothing.  OP runs 144 hours out are worthless.  The pattern never supported a storm near the coast at all

[ForestHillWx]

13/1 currently.

Cold AF putting out trash and getting magnesium chloride on the remaining sections of the glacier on our driveway. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

10 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

I have been wondering how the rising Indian ocean temperatures will offset other rising ocean temperatures as the Indian Ocean houses phases one and two which are cold phases for our area. Obviously if the waters off Japan continue unabated and are attributing to the faster jet our storm track will be in Jeopardy, however, purely from a temperature average perspective the rising Indian Ocean temps should offset the warmer phases impacted by the Indonesian water temperatures.

I know Chris probably disagrees, but I instinctively feel as thought the earth will find a means by which to restablish balance and equilibrium....its proven remarkably resilient in that respect.

But again....this isn't me resistanting because I love winter....this is me resisting because I need more time to distinguish between onimpresent natural variability and whole scale CC induced changes. If we are still mired in this regime in another decade, I'll be entirely on tream Chris.

[40/70 Benchmark]

3 minutes ago, qg_omega said:

What fail?  Most models when bias adjusted showed nothing.  OP runs 144 hours out are worthless.  The pattern never supported a storm near the coast at all

I remember I came in into this forum right after the 3' run for NYC and opined that it would be captured later and trend NE....it wasn't recieved well.

[brooklynwx99]

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I remember I came in into this forum right after the 3' run for NYC and opined that it would be captured later and trend NE....it wasn't recieved well.

he shits on every storm threat that has ever formed

[LibertyBell]

3 hours ago, brooklynwx99 said:

that's kinda silly. that attitude is borne out of frustration rather than anything scientific

it's born out of being cautious and models failing multiple times.  You've seen the bipolar attitude on this forum, it's safer not to trust anything you see until it's within the *certain* range.

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 minute ago, brooklynwx99 said:

he shits on every storm threat that has ever formed

Yea, he his a titty twister by trade...no doubt. Just saying, prior to that one I suspected....

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

There has been an interesting phenomenon happening with the modeling since 18-19. Some models have been showing unrealistic snowfall outcomes longer range given the jet dynamics which have been in place. But the storm tracks once under 120 and 72 hrs conformed to the cutter, hugger, and suppressed Southern Stream storm tracks. So my guess is that the new model bias is showing too little Pacific interference or disruption longer range which becomes evident once the storm comes into closer range.

A faster Northern Stream of the Pacific Jet can lead to shortwave spacing issues like we have this week. So the shorter term models will be able to see the shortwave behind acting as a kicker. But this distinction isn’t clear longer range leading to false positive snowfall outcomes. Then when we do have enough wavelength spacing like this past weekend, a suppressed or hugger initial long range forecast can become a cutter in the short range. Other times we had snowier long range forecast outcomes which had a slightly stronger Southeast Ridge like models were snowing earlier this month. This is why the EPS 240 to 360 hr snow means kept showing double digit totals for NYC which didn’t verify. The gradient drifted about 30 to 50 miles further north over time since the faster flow and warm water feedback off the East Coast worked in tandem.

This has been a pretty big departure from the modeling from 2010 to 2018. Now we all know that there were false positive long range snowfall outcomes during this era. But there were also several successful long range modeling events. We can all remember the Euro control run from a week out nailing the 950mb benchmark blizzard in January 2018. And there were other examples of the models correctly forecasting  longer range snowstorms. 

The Pacific Jet was much weaker and we had we had a well established benchmark storm track for the better part of 9 seasons. So these days it’s pretty much become the norm that the benchmark storm tracks only show up days 6-10 and 11-15 but don’t  make it into the under 120 hr range once the full impact of the Pacific Jet comes into better focus.  So models showing benchmark tracks beyond 120 hrs need to be taken with a grain of salt. But if this multiyear storm tracks is to end, it will have to occur in the short range in order to be believed. 

The single greatest predictor of the weather is...... persistence.  

Unless something game changing happens, expect more of the same.

 

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

There has been an interesting phenomenon happening with the modeling since 18-19. Some models have been showing unrealistic snowfall outcomes longer range given the jet dynamics which have been in place. But the storm tracks once under 120 and 72 hrs conformed to the cutter, hugger, and suppressed Southern Stream storm tracks. So my guess is that the new model bias is showing too little Pacific interference or disruption longer range which becomes evident once the storm comes into closer range.

A faster Northern Stream of the Pacific Jet can lead to shortwave spacing issues like we have this week. So the shorter term models will be able to see the shortwave behind acting as a kicker. But this distinction isn’t clear longer range leading to false positive snowfall outcomes. Then when we do have enough wavelength spacing like this past weekend, a suppressed or hugger initial long range forecast can become a cutter in the short range. Other times we had snowier long range forecast outcomes which had a slightly stronger Southeast Ridge like models were snowing earlier this month. This is why the EPS 240 to 360 hr snow means kept showing double digit totals for NYC which didn’t verify. The gradient drifted about 30 to 50 miles further north over time since the faster flow and warm water feedback off the East Coast worked in tandem.

This has been a pretty big departure from the modeling from 2010 to 2018. Now we all know that there were false positive long range snowfall outcomes during this era. But there were also several successful long range modeling events. We can all remember the Euro control run from a week out nailing the 950mb benchmark blizzard in January 2018. And there were other examples of the models correctly forecasting  longer range snowstorms. 

The Pacific Jet was much weaker and we had we had a well established benchmark storm track for the better part of 9 seasons. So these days it’s pretty much become the norm that the benchmark storm tracks only show up days 6-10 and 11-15 but don’t  make it into the under 120 hr range once the full impact of the Pacific Jet comes into better focus.  So models showing benchmark tracks beyond 120 hrs need to be taken with a grain of salt. But if this multiyear storm tracks is to end, it will have to occur in the short range in order to be believed. 

The question is what changed so greatly between 2017-18 and 2018-19? Was that when the marine heatwaves in the West Pacific began or just when they reached the threshold to cause the Pacific jet to interfere with the spacing of shortwaves?