• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Wintry Winter 2017-18 discussion

GaWx said:
The WeatherBell Pioneer model has a chilly winter for the SE US with ~-1 to -1.5 F colder than normal, which is way colder than what JB has. I hope JB doesn't cover his butt if the winter were to end up cold by saying "even though I was warm, the Pioneer was cold blah blah blah...." to try to get partial credit.
Click to expand...

This is the pioneer model for last year’s winter. Call me skeptical.
0f791b95458f048ee2982349d266a728.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jon said:
This is the pioneer model for last year’s winter. Call me skeptical.
0f791b95458f048ee2982349d266a728.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's amazing how all that cold goes away when you use a more applicable base period (1895-2000) which skews the temperature anomalies warmer to account for AGW and add March, which arguably should be given due consideration in winter forecasts, esp given it's the 3rd snowiest month in the Carolinas... If anything, the pioneer model for DJFM couldn't have been any further from reality. Yeah I wouldnt take them seriously...
cd152.7.224.4.304.8.50.7.prcp.png

cd152.7.224.4.304.8.54.31.prcp.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jon
Webberweather53 said:
It's amazing how all that cold goes away when you use a more applicable base period (1895-2000) which skews the temperature anomalies warmer to account for AGW and add March, which arguably should be given due consideration in winter forecasts, esp given it's the 3rd snowiest month in the Carolinas... If anything, the pioneer model for DJFM couldn't have been any further from reality. Yeah I wouldnt take them seriously...
View attachment 1473

View attachment 1474
Click to expand...

You can essentially sift through dozens of analog years for various reasons and just pick a blend that is already geared to your thoughts or what you “hope” happens in the upcoming winter year. I fear most JB related stuff, including the pioneer model, is mostly due to confirmation bias.

I messed with composite maps until my eyes bled last year, I maybe got 5 out of 100 that even remotely portrayed what happened in actuality. It’s a learning experience, but I feel like many forecasters never quite learn it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SimeonNC said:
The past two years we've seen fast advancing snow in Siberia and it was still warm. Anything mentioning the sai will be taken with a grain of salt as far as I'm concerned.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I agree although I'm not saying this because it would be better for our winter for this year's SAI signal to be wrong. I'm saying that because it no longer has credibility to me, something I've been saying. If the result had been the opposite, implying a good signal for our winter, I'd have said the same thing..take with a grain no matter what it suggests for the winter/AO.
 
Snowfan said:
Strong Polar Vortex is bad news.
Click to expand...

Maybe not. Last year we had a very weak PV and splitting at this time period and the PV was weak for a majority of the winter and that didn’t do anything for us. Maybe having it strong right now and hoping for a split when it matters down the road during the climo favored months is more ideal. Obviously don’t want a very strong PV for the entirety of winter....but I’ll take it, for now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jon said:
You can essentially sift through dozens of analog years for various reasons and just pick a blend that is already geared to your thoughts or what you “hope” happens in the upcoming winter year. I fear most JB related stuff, including the pioneer model, is mostly due to confirmation bias.

I messed with composite maps until my eyes bled last year, I maybe got 5 out of 100 that even remotely portrayed what happened in actuality. It’s a learning experience, but I feel like many forecasters never quite learn it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yeah I think most even degreed mets don't understand the true value of analogs, many create them, initializing with current conditions and treat their output as gospel and often only produce one or maybe a few sets of them without giving any due consideration to other variables. Appallingly, many even compare the analogs to climatological base periods that are far outside the temporal range of the analogs of interest (occurs most often with NOAA US PSD data where post 1950 analogs are used by are compared against the 1981-2010 base period and are thus depicted cooler than what they should be). If you really boil it down conceptually, analogs are basically a determinstic, statistical, historical model. If everyone treated these analogs like a numerical weather prediction model, with many of the same basic nuances, sampling, resolution, and dynamical uncertainties and biases, and that skill increasingly degrades with time and may even be state dependent (meaning that analogs in general may more perform better in reanalyzing and forecasting the weather), we would be a lot better off and wouldn't have nearly the issues we currently do wrt analogs. Any model is going to be an imperfect representation of the current state ocean and atmosphere in some way, shape, or form because we can't measure and evaluate the weather at every single point on the globe at all possible times to perfection, we are limited in our spatial and temporal coverage, instrumental and statistical interpolating uncertainities as well as other unforeseen, & often less significant sources of error. For analogs specifically, a few other sources of error emerge, from the broad assumption that the weather that's occurred in the past will repeat itself exactly in the future with no statistically significant dynamically changes at any point in time or space in any of the observed phenomena, & that the observed frequency distribution of said phenomena is Ironclad and/or completely set in stone and contains more than enough events s.t it can may yield significant results and similar deterministic historical depictions of the ocean and atmosphere would not diverge much from observations. Rather, (as I mentioned in a previous heated discussion with Larry), they should be treated as only one solution of infinitely many that are possible for a given climate background, thus, there exists an inherent amount of uncertainty that a forecaster, climatologist, or other scientist should know and they need to adjust or word their forecast accordingly. This all of course means that even if your analogs initialized the current state of the ocean and atmosphere perfectly, you have to be able to understand the physical processes, trends, and potential for stochastic external events that are and may drive the overall weather pattern in the future and only use your analogs, like an operational NWP model, as as a tool, not a forecast. Henceforth, this also means that you must dynamically adjust them to things that may not be adequately captured by the historical record, such as global warming and random variability, & the alterations to the general circulation that may accompany it.
 
Last edited:
Webberweather53 said:
Yeah I think most even degreed mets don't understand the true value of analogs, many create them, initializing with current conditions and treat their output as gospel and often only produce one or maybe a few sets of them without giving any due consideration to other variables. Appallingly, many even compare the analogs to climatological base periods that are far outside the temporal range of the analogs of interest (occurs most often with NOAA US PSD data where post 1950 analogs are used by are compared against the 1981-2010 base period and are thus depicted cooler than what they should be). If you really boil it down conceptually, analogs are basically a determinstic, statistical, historical model. If everyone treated these analogs like a numerical weather prediction model, with many of the same basic nuances, sampling, resolution, and dynamical uncertainties and biases, and that skill increasingly degrades with time and may even be state dependent (meaning that analogs in general may more perform better in reanalyzing and forecasting the weather), we would be a lot better off and wouldn't have nearly the issues we currently do wrt analogs. Any model is going to be an imperfect representation of the current state ocean and atmosphere in some way, shape, or form because we can't measure and evaluate the weather at every single point on the globe at all possible times to perfection, we are limited in our spatial and temporal coverage, instrumental and statistical interpolating uncertainities as well as other unforeseen, & often less significant sources of error. For analogs specifically, a few other sources of error emerge, from the broad assumption that the weather that's occurred in the past will repeat itself exactly in the future with no statistically significant dynamically changes at any point in time or space in any of the observed phenomena, & that the observed frequency distribution of said phenomena is Ironclad and/or completely set in stone and contains more than enough events s.t it can may yield significant results and similar deterministic historical depictions of the ocean and atmosphere would not diverge much from observations. Rather, (as I mentioned in a previous heated discussion with Larry), they should be treated as only one solution of infinitely many that are possible for a given climate background, thus, there exists an inherent amount of uncertainty that a forecaster, climatologist, or other scientist should know and they need to adjust or word their forecast accordingly. This all of course means that even if your analogs initialized the current state of the ocean and atmosphere perfectly, you have to be able to understand the physical processes, trends, and potential for stochastic external events that are and may drive the overall weather pattern in the future and only use your analogs, like an operational NWP model, as as a tool, not a forecast. Henceforth, this also means that you must dynamically adjust them to things that may not be adequately captured by the historical record, such as global warming, & the alterations to the general circulation that may accompany it.
Click to expand...
Webb,
That is by far the best, most cohesive, and IMHO spot on post you've ever made, here or "over there". Kudos.
Best!
Phil
 
Webberweather53 said:
Yeah I think most even degreed mets don't understand the true value of analogs, many create them, initializing with current conditions and treat their output as gospel and often only produce one or maybe a few sets of them without giving any due consideration to other variables. Appallingly, many even compare the analogs to climatological base periods that are far outside the temporal range of the analogs of interest (occurs most often with NOAA US PSD data where post 1950 analogs are used by are compared against the 1981-2010 base period and are thus depicted cooler than what they should be). If you really boil it down conceptually, analogs are basically a determinstic, statistical, historical model. If everyone treated these analogs like a numerical weather prediction model, with many of the same basic nuances, sampling, resolution, and dynamical uncertainties and biases, and that skill increasingly degrades with time and may even be state dependent (meaning that analogs in general may more perform better in reanalyzing and forecasting the weather), we would be a lot better off and wouldn't have nearly the issues we currently do wrt analogs. Any model is going to be an imperfect representation of the current state ocean and atmosphere in some way, shape, or form because we can't measure and evaluate the weather at every single point on the globe at all possible times to perfection, we are limited in our spatial and temporal coverage, instrumental and statistical interpolating uncertainities as well as other unforeseen, & often less significant sources of error. For analogs specifically, a few other sources of error emerge, from the broad assumption that the weather that's occurred in the past will repeat itself exactly in the future with no statistically significant dynamically changes at any point in time or space in any of the observed phenomena, & that the observed frequency distribution of said phenomena is Ironclad and/or completely set in stone and contains more than enough events s.t it can may yield significant results and similar deterministic historical depictions of the ocean and atmosphere would not diverge much from observations. Rather, (as I mentioned in a previous heated discussion with Larry), they should be treated as only one solution of infinitely many that are possible for a given climate background, thus, there exists an inherent amount of uncertainty that a forecaster, climatologist, or other scientist should know and they need to adjust or word their forecast accordingly. This all of course means that even if your analogs initialized the current state of the ocean and atmosphere perfectly, you have to be able to understand the physical processes, trends, and potential for stochastic external events that are and may drive the overall weather pattern in the future and only use your analogs, like an operational NWP model, as as a tool, not a forecast. Henceforth, this also means that you must dynamically adjust them to things that may not be adequately captured by the historical record, such as global warming and random variability, & the alterations to the general circulation that may accompany it.
Click to expand...

Well put!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Webberweather53 said:
The even more impressive blizzard of early March 1927 came off the warmest February on record (until last year) in a -ENSO regime... For many in the southeastern US, it's actually still the warmest February on record. Not to mention this storm took a very unusual track for a very large winter storm in NC, originated as a hybrid Alberta Clipper that came east-southeastward across the Appalachians. Yes, there's definitely hope lol we need to take advantage of every opportunity we get because they're becoming increasingly less frequent w/ time as the bgd climate state continues to warm.
View attachment 1456

View attachment 1455
Click to expand...
crazy storm there... CHA had a 2 day storm total of 11 inches. Was the all time biggest March snowstorm until the 93 storm of the century.

so this wasn't a Miller A type storm either? Wow, wish I had access to maps for this..
 
Last edited:
As I posted in the November thread I'm very intrigued by the high latitude blocking going on over Russia on the models

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
SD said:
As I posted in the November thread I'm very intrigued by the high latitude blocking going on over Russia on the models

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Sd, why are you intrigued about that overseas? I know the models are trying to develop a -nao
 
Mr. Golf said:
Sd, why are you intrigued about that overseas? I know the models are trying to develop a -nao
Click to expand...
My big thing is it should set up a cold pattern in Canada and increase snow cover. It'll also be interesting you see if it reappears in winter. It would certainly favor a -ao and cold dumps into at minimum the western and northern US. I could be wrong but it is a reversal of the last 2 Novembers

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Maybe a met could answer this but, weird thing I have always wondered, if we had a huge lake above us, say it covers just north of say from Arkansas all the way to North Carolina, would we have huge snow amounts for winter because the lake wound never get really cold and it seems to me every time a cold front blasted through we would have a crap load of snow bands blowing off this lake wouldn’t we? This is not a wide lake, more long but wide enough to create bands. Just was wondering, weird thought I know. Seems like it would be a perfect area cause the lake would never get too cold so would produce a lot of updraft every cold front. And when we really got a huge front it would produce dangerous amounts of snow with temp deference’s.
 
Usmeagle2005 said:
Maybe a met could answer this but, weird thing I have always wondered, if we had a huge lake above us, say it covers just north of say from Arkansas all the way to North Carolina, would we have huge snow amounts for winter because the lake wound never get really cold and it seems to me every time a cold front blasted through we would have a crap load of snow bands blowing off this lake wouldn’t we? This is not a wide lake, more long but wide enough to create bands. Just was wondering, weird thought I know. Seems like it would be a perfect area cause the lake would never get too cold so would produce a lot of updraft every cold front. And when we really got a huge front it would produce dangerous amounts of snow with temp deference’s.
Click to expand...
Move to South Bend, IN - works every year ... :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top