Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

41 Excellent

About CloudIridescence

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Location
    Tabernacle, NJ

Recent Profile Visitors

244 profile views
  1. That's a good distinction to be made! I agree that Isotherm made a mistake when he argued that there have been no periods of -NAO (or, at least, no periods of there being positive height anomalies in the NAO/Greenland regionish area...), though perhaps he looked at the CPC NAO teleconnection website, where his idea is supported! It doesn't mean that we can't be critical of the source, though... The CPC is generally well-regarded in meteorology discourse, so I don't fault anyone for using it as a source to point to when supporting a claim, though the discrepancies between the ERSL's methods of calculating the NAO vs. the CPC's methods justifiably raise a discussion on which one is more accurate. Ah... I do have sympathy for Isotherm, since he was getting criticized a bit too harshly I feel... I certainly do *not* want to argue that a person can't be critiqued simply because of circumstances in their personal life, or if they were, according to my completely subjective idea of fair/unfair, "unfairly" criticized too heavily... But I truly do feel that tensions rose a bit too high against Isotherm earlier, and that some emotionally charged language was being used, which I feel shouldn't usually have a place on a forum that aims to be informative and accessible to its users. With all of that said, I do not want to censor you or keep you from holding this topic to Isotherm, where you are entitled to believing that Isotherm is incorrect. I think that we should not antagonize him, nor any one weather enthusiast/meteorologist, too heavily though, for we are all simply trying to better understand meteorological topics (which is a lot of fun for us!). I feel that this forum has managed to accumulate a good, diverse group of knowledgeable individuals who contribute worthwhile posts each day, and that I have no problems with users disagreeing. But, I fear that this forum will lose some of the reputable members that its acquired if there continues to be periods of tribalism of "snowy vs. snowless" rising up again and again, where these discussions should ideally have little to do with the emotional aspects of getting much snow vs. getting little snow during the winter, and simply focusing on analyzing what is happening in the realm of meteorology, and simply seeking the truth. Though, this forum shouldn't be devoid of emotions of course :O) The camaraderie is great! It's just that we could afford to stow away our more negative emotions at times...
  2. Hopefully I didn't further muddy things with my post! I was mainly supporting Isotherm with regards to him pointing out that there have averaged lower heights in/around Greenland during this month... You did make a good point that, under scrutiny, Isotherm "moved the goalposts" when he changed his position from there being no -NAO episodes during this month so far, and there being an averaged +NAO regime, which was a mistake... With that said, I don't think that it would be unreasonable for even a seasoned weather enthusiast to view the average 500mb anomalies this month, see the averaged negative anomalies, and conclude that there has generally been a positive NAO. This 1000-500 hPa thickness anomaly gif that I've taken from worldclimateservice.com (just citin' more sources for discussion + leaving it up to criticism if needed... It's also generally a cool tool, though!) From this animation, it seems that there was temporarily higher thicknesses in the Greenland/NAO-ish region, followed by generally lower heights until ~December 15th, with what could possibly(?) be considered a west-based -NAO (or a neutralish NAO w/ higher thicknesses in the western portion of the domain, and generally lower thicknesses in the eastern portion of the domain) It could be argued that this isn't exactly apples-to-apples, where while 500mb heights are used in the calculation for the thicknesses, the .gif that I posted isn't exactly 500mb height anomalies like has previously been compared (so I will concede that it's not perfect in that sense), but this difference does not seem to necessarily contradict the idea that there have generally been lower heights (or, at least, lower 1000-500 thicknesses) in the *general* NAO domain, though it seems that further analysis has shown that there has been more variability in the region than a strongly persistent signal... This does support Webber's idea with the wave breaking in that region, though I would say that this pattern reflects the variability within this domain rather than a persistent NAO signal, which even though there have averaged lower heights/thicknesses in that region during this month, a day-by-day analysis reveals that it's been a little more variable.
  3. It's not cherry-picking to point out that negative 500mb heights have averaged in the NAO domain according to this graphic, which was generated using *official* NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis data. Isotherm wasn't trying to cherry-pick with the snowfall maps that he chose either, which was made using NWS spotter data (which is visible on the map). I'm not exactly sure if Isotherm is arguing that this December was warm/snowless entirely, so much as it's not been extraordinarily snowy (in terms of volume of snow... There have been a good number of snow events in the forum's primary region, though!) it does seem to be cherry-picking when pointing out one source of NAO calculations, despite it too revealing that the NAO has *averaged* positive over the course of this month (which is supported by the 500mb map Isotherm posted)... The map also shows that averaged was a trough in the eastern US during the time period, which does not contradict what Isotherm was saying about the NAO... And so, I'm not sure why there is such backlash against Isotherm. It seems that members are getting upset with Isotherm's warmer than average + less snowy than average forecast for December (which won't have worked out as expected for *some* regions in the forum, but not all), and are being too critical... This forum has a serious problem with being biased towards cold and snowy, and it's a bit irritating for some of us casual lurkers/frequenters of this forum. I stay on here because I appreciate how knowledgable people are on here, but this in-fighting makes this forum feel a lot less appealing for typical users.
  4. This fighting is too much... Let's move on. Nothing of value is getting reaped from this discussion, and it's only hurting valuable meteorologists' reputations. On a different topic, something I've been curious about is the ongoing bouts/periods of warming in the stratosphere, and its potential effects later in the year. Maybe this question is too complex to effectively tackle, given that not only are warm punches to the stratospheric polar vortex significant, but so is the extent to which these warming events propagate to the tropospheric polar vortex, but are there any indicators to how significantly the future of this winter will be affected? Are there any MJO effects that might encourage/discourage coupling between a weakened stratospheric polar vortex and the tropospheric polar vortex? In addition, is it appearing that we will follow a fairly common El Niño progression this winter, with wintry weather being reserved until at least after December?
  5. Webberweather's opinions as an authority on meteorology, like many other users on here, are valuable! We should not be attacking him so harshly, else we won't be able to better understand the reasoning behind his ideas. I enjoy coming on here because meteorologists/weather enthusiasts can elaborate on their ideas much better than on, for example, Twitter, and it is not right to push away knowledgeable people even if we disagree with them. This arguing is unnecessary... I think that it's worth mentioning that the CFS v2 forecasts for next month have warmed up quite a bit, and while the northeast isn't terribly warm, it is not outside the realm of possibility that a warm December for much of the United States is to be expected. At the same time, it is not as if all signs are pointing towards a torch-y December, and weather models such as the CFS are fallible, though I find that the CFS monthly forecasts are generally accurate; they're often either nearly spot-on, or almost completely wrong, but they're more often correct than incorrect! And in addition, there remains one more day this month to evaluate the CFS v2 forecast, and while I am certainly rooting for at least a slight toning down of the warmth, it is not unusual for us to experience warm Decembers (particularly within the past decade). With all that said, the truth is that none of us know *exactly* what will happen in terms of observable weather in December, nor do we know *exactly* what consequences the weather patterns in December will have on the weather in the remainder of the winter. As such, there are differing opinions and contradictory data that we should all be working through together—unified—to better understand what will happen. And... This means that we should not be attacking any meteorologists/researchers/enthusiasts We're all learning, and nobody knows how to perfectly forecast a season... It's difficult to learn through the arguing, so we should instead be more forgiving of each other and our mistakes!
  6. I unfortunately do not have as great a wealth of knowledge to lend out on this topic, but just from looking at the magnitude of the AAM graphed from the past 365 days, it seems that we are in opposite AAM states between this time last year and now. If I'm interpreting this correctly, it seems like there is a misconception that last winter had a primarily -AAM, and people are fretting over the future of this winter because we are again in a -AAM... In contrast, there was a rather +AAM last winter, peaking in February—when we had a very La Nina-esque look in the U.S. ... At least, with regards to the SE ridge dominating the weather on the east coast, with a equally dominating western trough. La Nina 500mb heights in February (Feb +SOI Correlations to represent) +AAM 500mb heights in February Observed 500mb heights in February 2019 ... Despite the solidly +AAM, the height anomalies were not reflective of a +AAM regime. I've noticed Snowy Hibbo trying to stress the point that the AAM state currently being observed is not a death sentence for the upcoming winter in the east, and a -AAM regime does not necessarily look bad for the DJF trimonthly period for 500mb heights. DJF 500mb Anomalies for -AAM TL;DR - The AAM between last winter and this upcoming winter are in opposite states - The current -AAM does not guarantee a warm/snowless winter - Last year's solid +AAM in February, which AAM state is correlated with a pattern that's favorable for wintery weather in the east overall, did not having a matching weather pattern ... Correlation /=/ causation
  • Create New...