Jump to content

rb924119

Meteorologist
  • Content Count

    1,315
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

rb924119 last won the day on February 15 2020

rb924119 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,440 Excellent

1 Follower

About rb924119

  • Rank
    Superstar Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Greentown, Pa/Fishkill, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So, if I may, I'm going to use a later image to help demonstrate: In this image, I have a few different things quickly and approximately annotated just to try to demonstrate my broader points: our storm of interest is the red "L", our progged evolving surface high pressure (based on basic dynamics of H5, not surface maps) denoted by the two blue "H" enclosed by the blue circle, the outline of what is being referenced as a 50/50 low (which it's actually further northwest than we would like) as well as a second phasing trough, which is Monday's energy, a weakness in the N
  2. You literally said: “That Negative is almost perfect, its out of Alaska and diving into the Aleutians.” That’s what I was referring to. I don’t agree. It’s not out of Alaska, it’s still there, and pieces are ejecting out of it and crashing any PNA over downstream. I agree with you, clearly, that we want it fully removed from Alaska. I really don’t understand the hostility because I have a dissenting opinion; I thought this was an open forum where we could openly discuss ideas? I’m sorry I don’t have as optimistic of a viewpoint as you do, but I’m also trying to be as re
  3. Careful here, PB; you’re falling into the same trap as last this last go around. The negatives are still in Alaska, it’s just that the greatest departure from average is in the base of the trough (which makes sense). You still have ejections from that trough out of Alaska and British Columbia, as evidenced by the east-southeastward extension of the negatives, which will act to mute any PNA response by chopping the top off and force it to roll downstream, just like we’ve seen this time. This is further evidenced by the positive tilt of the positive anomalies near/over western North America. As
  4. 100% @CCB!. @RAllen964 if you have a -AO, neutralizing PNA and a +EPO, then that right there generically tells you that the cold dislodged by the -AO is very likely to be displaced over western North America/Alaska instead of the central and eastern CONUS. Combined with MJO 4-6, the central and eastern CONUS are still warm, and the blend of all of these align perfectly for that atmospheric configuration, which is also being well advertised by modeling. It’s not a 1:1 relationship with teleconnections. You can’t just look at a chart of two indices and say that cold is coming because
  5. In my opinion, these graphs are nearly useless. All they show is a numerical value without giving any context to how the actual atmosphere is behaving. It’s a static integer, the atmosphere is fluid.
  6. You guys need to be careful here. I’m no expert, but this graphic is NOT depicting longitudinal (east-west) momentum transport, it’s depicting latitudinal momentum transport (north-south), as indicated by the latitude bar on the bottom of the graphic. So to say that it’s showing winds blowing from east to west isn’t an accurate assessment. What it IS showing you is a net transport of lower relative momentum from the mid-latitude belt (south/equatorward of 60N latitude) into the lower mid-latitude and northern sub-tropical belts (near 30N latitude). Using the left-hand side of the graphic, you
  7. ..........I knewwwwwwww thattttttttt Lmao Thank you for the correction though! I don’t remember that event that you’re speaking of then. Unless it was the one where it was a relatively weak wave along the frontal boundary draped offshore that had just enough cold air seep in behind that like Monmouth County, NJ, northeastward through LI and into southeastern New England cashed on decently banded overrunning/frontogenetic precip? If it was, then I remember it because I got burned badly by that system haha if not, then idk haha but I definitely see your point about windows of oppo
  8. That year also featured an amazing SSW that completely turned the tide of that winter with four nor’easters out of five consecutive weekends into mid-March. Also recall that a major, off the charts tour-de-force of the MJO through phases 5, 6, and 7 occurred through the last third of December and the entirety of that January to set the wheels of that SSW into motion before the hammer came down. As they say, the night is darkest just before the dawn. I’m not saying that will happen this year, but I am pointing out some of the similarities between this year and then. As I’ve already said, I thin
  9. Unless we see changes elsewhere, even with low amplitude (which I think is an incorrect representation based on my previous post), with the base state that we currently have, I’d respectfully disagree. There are just too many factors allowing pacific/warm air to get involved (in my opinion). That doesn’t mean things can’t/won’t change though
  10. These RMM plots have been useless for assessing amplitude, as been stated several times. If you look at velocity potential and OLR anomalies, we have been in a much more amplified 3/4 proceeding to 5 atmospheric response than this would indicate and compared to what has been observed, which is why the modeling has been busting in its representation of the Northern Hemispheric pattern IMO - it’s been trying to erroneously mute the tropical influence. However, I fully agree with you in the potential benefits down the road, as I alluded to in the other thread.
  11. So here’s my opinion on any **potential** SSW event, and this was ripped from another discussion with a fellow poster: “....if we can really get the MJO to gain serious amplitude and propagate SLOWLY through the Maritime Continent, that’s a precursor to a true SSW event with favorable alignment (for our region) thanks to the thermodynamics involved. But, we’d have to both take it on the proverbial chin and deal with another torch of a December and probably first half of January AND THEN hope that it’s enough to seriously weaken the anomalously strong stratospheric vortex in a backg
  12. I personally wouldn’t cling to this as I said before, but if anybody here has a shot to see any fluff with the marginal temps right at the end, it’s you haha
  13. Idk why, but I am literally dying at this right now ahaha this was too freakin’ funny
  14. Having more, quality data never hurts. But as you said, building these supercomputers that would be able to handle the immense number of calculations in a timely manner would be exceptionally expensive. Not to mention a lot of the formulae these computers use are approximations - they aren’t perfect. That’s why you get different solution between different models for a certain event, because each model has different parameterizations of various atmospheric processes (convection schemes, cloud physics, etc.). There is no way that we can KNOW what is going on everywhere at all levels on all scale
  15. Vehemently, respectfully, but vehemently disagree with this. People can try, but they will NEVER get a machine to beat human intuition, in my opinion, especially in extreme situations.
×
×
  • Create New...