Phil

I don't think anyone is denying the modeling "incorporates" topography. It's more complicated than that, on a number of levels.

Yes, I still like the second half of December and/or early January. Then another solid pattern towards the end of January, into February.

Haha. If I were to say something like that, I'd be laughed off the forum in disgrace.

Maybe so, but since I confidently forecasted a colder than average December and February in the PNW, why would I want to prove myself wrong? That just doesn't make any sense. This whole thing sounds like a big conspiracy theory to me.

Wow, you're truly unhinged. First, I've never once mentioned the CFS here, and second, I've been quite positive when I see runs/trends that I like. I don't know what planet you're living in but it can't be this one. Sorry, but I'm not going to go about wishcasting 24/7. That's a recipe for a lot of busts.

Yes, Jesse, I was being "negative" all summer long with my forecasts for a troughy background state. Also my forecast for a colder than average PNW winter..so negative, right? How about my forecast for a possible Holiday season Arctic blast and a significant blast and/or solid pattern in February as well? Talk about being a debbie downer. You're completely delusional and unhinged if you think I'm trolling and/or secretly biased against a certain outcome. Why would I work so hard on my winter forecast only to waste days trying to prove myself wrong? Lol.

There you go with the paranoia again. Not true at all. When I something I believe to be negative, that's what I convey. Visa versa when I see something positive.

Ain't that the truth. It's very, very easy to be wrong in this business. That's part of what makes it fun and interesting.

Yeah I realized that, hence my deletion of that line from the post. It was only up there for 10 seconds.

There are..the ECMWF has a huge east-Asian mountain torque cycle beginning, and is much more aggressive w/ it than the GFS/GEFS. In the end that usually bodes poorly for NPAC blocking.

Also, that stuff at d10 looks suspiciously like the classic ECMWF bias of digging troughs too far SW over mountainous terrain. The ECMWF has never handled North American mountain torquing well, for whatever reason.

The large scale pattern/forcing progression (regardless of minute details) is something that can be analyzed. I'm not even looking at the smaller scale stuff.

Yep. I like the GFS more because it's slower with the EAMT cycle hence would delay the onset of the NPAC jet extension. The ECMWF solution would devolve into that sort of pattern fairly quickly. Not trying to crash the party, just pointing out what I think needs to be pointed out.

I feel like I'm on another planet here. All I see is another wave complex bound to slide east of the Rockies following an EAMT surge and corresponding height falls over/south of the Aleutians.

Some strange model analysis in here today. By d9, the 12Z ECMWF has a higher wavenumber than the GFS, and a much deeper trough in the NPAC. How is this beneficial? Looks more like a typical ECMWF bias in digging shortwaves too far S/SW. http://i724.photobucket.com/albums/ww243/phillywillie/Mobile%20Uploads/001545A5-28EA-4F04-8B41-6B7ECFDB1729_zpstib5re6c.png

The GFS is just deeper with the offshore shortwave..that's small scale stuff. If that's what you call a "progressive" pattern, all the power to you. Here's the 500mb differential between the two @ d7. I wouldn't call the ECMWF "less progressive" at all, at least not from a larger scale standpoint. http://i724.photobucket.com/albums/ww243/phillywillie/Mobile%20Uploads/CB33D6B0-3282-40CF-B299-753B7B23178D_zpsx38n54sr.png

Wrong. It's not warmer with the airmass, rather it's just 12hrs faster with the eastward propagation of the frontogenic zone. Also, it's definitely not "less progressive" from a 500mb standpoint, either.

Yeah, that was the 00z ECMWF, and it's mostly a timing difference rather than an airmass difference. Minor differences in streamflow can have that effect in transitional periods. I'm just referring to the 500mb pattern progression.

The ECMWF has really pulled back on the extent to which the trough digs into the SW. That's been one of its biases for awhile now, and it looks to still be a problem. Huge differences there even compared to two days ago..like, it's almost a whopping 200 miles farther NE with the base of the trough.

12z ECMWF very similar to the GFS overall, actually has lower 500mb heights over the NPAC/western Aleutians compared to the GFS and GGEM.

Every 12z GFS analog year on the CPC site (except one) was a +QBO year. As research continues to pour into the literature networks, it's now very difficult to deny the importance of the stratospheric background state in seasonal forecasting, IMO.. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/short_range/tools/gifs/500hgt_comp_12gfs814.gif

Also has the tropical forcing/poleward WAFs further east, closer to 140E/150E instead of 120E. If this comes to fruition, it bodes much better for you guys.

GFS is dangling some red meat in the clown range. Much less amplified EAMT/Branstrator Wave.

Wind is roaring today, enough to make house creak and rumble at times. Have to say, this winter feels like like it's starting out somewhat more "rationally" than recent years which were early season blowtorches, though November was brutally warm once again.

Looks like some early-season cold in the pipeline starting late next week, either Thursday or Friday. Maybe a few days with highs in the mid/upper 20s? Either way it looks like colder weather and some snowfall opportunities will begin shortly.