October 2016 Observations and Model Discussion for the Pacific Northwest

[wx_statman]

I'm not exactly understanding why January not being top tier fits into the discussion. The Arctic could see negative anomalies and the PNW may still see record warmth, because if the pattern is not conducive to bringing that air southward, then it doesn't really matter.

 

I can't speak for everyone else, but my point about a balmy source is that, if the Arctic is very warm, no matter what the pattern, it's going to be difficult to get impressive cold to our latitude. And if the Arctic is cold, then it merely increases the odds.

 

I think think the newest piece of information that I've recently come across is how cold Russia has been... there is certainly a cold source.

 

IMO, this is more pertinent to the PNW but not necessarily to other locations in the mid-latitudes, to piggy-back on the discussion earlier today. 

[Front Ranger]

I'm not exactly understanding why January not being top tier fits into the discussion. The Arctic could see negative anomalies and the PNW may still see record warmth, because if the pattern is not conducive to bringing that air southward, then it doesn't really matter.

 

I can't speak for everyone else, but my point about a balmy source is that, if the Arctic is very warm, no matter what the pattern, it's going to be difficult to get impressive cold to our latitude. And if the Arctic is cold, then it merely increases the odds.

 

I think think the newest piece of information that I've recently come across is how cold Russia has been... there is certainly a cold source.

 

Regarding the first bolded part, yes, this has been my point all along. The pattern is paramount. Not how warm/cold the Arctic is.

 

Overall, the Arctic has been very warm the past decade. The warmest of the warm periods has been in the fall, as the open water freezes up. That's been the case this year as well. And yet, even though the Arctic has been very warm pretty much every fall, the most impressive cold air masses to hit the PNW the past 10 years have almost all occurred early in the cold season - while the Arctic has still been quite warm!

 

When there is a -AO (as there has been this month), the Arctic will almost always be quite warm. And yet, as you acknowledge, Russia and much of Asia has been quite cold. That's not a coincidence - and they didn't need the Arctic to get real cold before they did.

 

Logically, we can see and cite many examples of times when lower latitudes got very cold, but the Arctic was not very cold (anomaly-wise) first. So it should become obvious that a cold Arctic does not directly correlate to colder temps in lower latitudes, or vice versa. 

 

However, when there is a prolonged +AO period and the Arctic gets very cold, and then there is a sudden disruption and flip to Arctic blocking as there was in early 1989, sometimes that can lead to the most impressive cold air outbreaks, because you have a massive polar vortex suddenly on the move south. But that's only one way to get impressive cold, not all big Arctic outbreaks are preceded by +AO and a cold Arctic.

[Front Ranger]

There's no continuity in the argument you're trying to make here.

 

I'm not going to speak for other people, but with regards to my quote (of the three) - I have already addressed the fact that I was talking about specific cold airmasses. I have also addressed my logic behind the statement, and why it applies on a basic level.

 

Again I am left to wonder, what you trying to achieve in this discussion?

 

My argument has been consistent from the beginning. You often take this tactic in discussions of trying to obfuscate matters rather than stick to the actual arguments, and I'm not going to play along and repeat everything I've said. Sorry.

 

There is simply no other way to read what you said, or what the others said, other than referring to the Arctic as the specific source of cold air masses. All three quotes, including your own, equated the Arctic as the source region. 2 + 2 does in fact = 4.

 

I am left to wonder, what are you trying to achieve in this discussion? I am not the one backpedaling, obfucating, and telling other members they aren't educated enough to contribute to the discussion. It seems, as is too often the case, you are making this personal. Not a productive approach.

 

We all have things to learn from each other.

[Phil]

I'm not exactly understanding why January not being top tier fits into the discussion. The Arctic could see negative anomalies and the PNW may still see record warmth, because if the pattern is not conducive to bringing that air southward, then it doesn't really matter.

 

I can't speak for everyone else, but my point about a balmy source is that, if the Arctic is very warm, no matter what the pattern, it's going to be difficult to get impressive cold to our latitude. And if the Arctic is cold, then it merely increases the odds.

 

I think think the newest piece of information that I've recently come across is how cold Russia has been... there is certainly a cold source.

The warm Arctic stuff is very much overplayed sometimes.

 

This is one of the most expansive Eurasian icebox patterns since the 1970s, to go along with the second highest Eurasian snowcover extent since 1966. Colder than average from the Arctic circle all the way down to Hong Kong and the Philippines on the latest modeling, and this deep freeze only looks to grow in spatial area over the next 2 weeks.

 

http://i724.photobucket.com/albums/ww243/phillywillie/Mobile%20Uploads/06F00D46-A38C-4402-8C6A-21B6C660CEC0_zps4qxcidi9.jpg

[snow_wizard]

The warm Arctic stuff is very much overplayed sometimes.

 

This is one of the most expansive Eurasian icebox patterns since the 1970s, to go along with the second highest Eurasian snowcover extent since 1966. Colder than average from the Arctic circle all the way down to Hong Kong and the Philippines on the latest modeling, and this deep freeze only looks to grow in spatial area over the next 2 weeks.

 

 

Wow!  That is an astounding area of cold air.  I really think we're going to have some serious fun this winter.  I've felt good about it for a long time.

[Phil]

Imagine every square inch of the North American continent running colder than average, from Canada to Mexico, to Greenland. That'd be roughly analogous to what has/will be ongoing across the Eurasian domain, and then some?

[snow_wizard]

As for why the NW has been unable get serious midwinter cold...500mb anoms...

 

Below are the composites for January from 1947 to 1957 and 2004 - 2014 (the latest 11 year period available).   Pretty easy to tell why the cold has been unable to dig into the West.  Also notice the East was warmer 1947 to 1957 than 2004 - 2014.

 

 

 

[snow_wizard]

Imagine every square inch of the North American continent running colder than average, from Canada to Mexico, to Greenland. That'd be roughly analogous to what has/will be ongoing across the Eurasian domain, and then some?

 

My jaw hit the floor when I saw the scope of that cold.  Truly amazing!

[wx_statman]

My argument has been consistent from the beginning. You often take this tactic in discussions of trying to obfuscate matters rather than stick to the actual arguments, and I'm not going to play along and repeat everything I've said. Sorry.

 

There is simply no other way to read what you said, or what the others said, other than referring to the Arctic as the specific source of cold air masses. All three quotes, including your own, equated the Arctic as the source region. 2 + 2 does in fact = 4.

 

I am left to wonder, what are you trying to achieve in this discussion? I am not the one backpedaling, obfucating, and telling other members they aren't educated enough to contribute to the discussion. It seems, as is too often the case, you are making this personal. Not a productive approach.

 

We all have things to learn from each other.

 

Outside of the last sentence, this post is nonsense. 

[Phil]

As for why the NW has been unable get serious midwinter cold...500mb anoms...

 

Below are the composites for January from 1947 to 1957 and 2004 - 2014 (the latest 11 year period available). Pretty easy to tell why the cold has been unable to dig into the West. Also notice the East was warmer 1947 to 1957 than 2004 - 2014.

Maybe you should tune for ENSO?

[Front Ranger]

Outside of the last sentence, this post is nonsense. 

 

So you have nothing to say. Then say nothing.

 

It's obvious when you don't want to address real points. I've made plenty that you've ignored in this discussion, choosing instead to focus on nothings. That's not contributing.

[Front Ranger]

The warm Arctic stuff is very much overplayed sometimes.

 

This is one of the most expansive Eurasian icebox patterns since the 1970s, to go along with the second highest Eurasian snowcover extent since 1966. Colder than average from the Arctic circle all the way down to Hong Kong and the Philippines on the latest modeling, and this deep freeze only looks to grow in spatial area over the next 2 weeks.

 

http://i724.photobucket.com/albums/ww243/phillywillie/Mobile%20Uploads/06F00D46-A38C-4402-8C6A-21B6C660CEC0_zps4qxcidi9.jpg

 

What other years have featured an expansive Asian ice box in the fall?

[Phil]

What other years have featured an expansive Asian ice box in the fall?

I'll have to go look, was just thinking about it actually. I know several of the late 1970s years were comparable, as were a few more recent years like 2009/10 and 2014/15 which were both Niño regimes.

[snow_wizard]

Maybe you should tune for ENSO?

 

Both periods featured quite a few Ninas so it should be a decent match already.  The point stands that January has lacked sharp blocking over the GOA/ Aleutians in recent years so that's why it hasn't gotten cold in that month.  I know the point is obvious, but some people don't seem to get it.

[snow_wizard]

I'll have to go look, was just thinking about it actually. I know several of the late 1970s years were comparable, as were a few more recent years like 2009/10 and 2014/15 which were both Niño regimes.

 

I think Bastardi was saying 1976 featured something like that.  Monumental cold in the East that winter, but it was a Nino.  It would be interesting to see if it has happened with cold ENSO.  The cold was so expansive in 1976-77 that even in Landsburg January was colder than any we have had since 1993

[BLI snowman]

What other years have featured an expansive Asian ice box in the fall?

2012, 1999, 1980, 1975, 1966, 1952, 1944

 

Good roster of years.

[Front Ranger]

2012, 1999, 1980, 1975, 1966, 1952, 1944

 

Good roster of years.

 

I think you forgot 1957 and 1963.

[BLI snowman]

I think you forgot 1957 and 1963.

Both were established Ninos, poor matches. 1960 and 2001 are close, though. Some nice similarities.

 

Nice to see real analogs finally coming into focus for us.

[Front Ranger]

From another site...more evidence that low Arctic sea ice likely leads to a weaker polar vortex and -AO. Given the weak ENSO state, +QBO, and what we've seen this fall, extensive high latitude blocking this winter seems probable.

 

This just out (behind a paywall) . Timely for this fall's unusual arctic circulation. Note positive feedback between sea ice loss and circulation changes leading to increased heat transport to arctic.

On the atmospheric response experiment to a Blue Arctic Ocean

Tetsu Nakamura1,2,*, Koji Yamazaki1,2, Meiji Honda3, Jinro Ukita3, Ralf Jaiser4, Dörthe Handorf4 and Klaus Dethloff4

Abstract

We demonstrated atmospheric responses to a reduction in Arctic sea ice via simulations in which Arctic sea ice decreased stepwise from the present-day range to an ice-free range. In all cases, the tropospheric response exhibited a negative Arctic Oscillation (AO)-like pattern. An intensification of the climatological planetary-scale wave due to the present-day sea ice reduction on the Atlantic side of the Arctic Ocean induced stratospheric polar vortex weakening and the subsequent negative AO. Conversely, strong Arctic warming due to ice-free conditions across the entire Arctic Ocean induced a weakening of the tropospheric westerlies corresponding to a negative AO without troposphere-stratosphere coupling, for which the planetary-scale wave response to a surface heat source extending to the Pacific side of the Arctic Ocean was responsible. Because the resultant negative AO-like response was accompanied by secondary circulation in the meridional plane, atmospheric heat transport into the Arctic increased, accelerating the Arctic amplification.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL070526/abstract

[bainbridgekid]

 

From another site...more evidence that low Arctic sea ice likely leads to a weaker polar vortex and -AO. Given the weak ENSO state, +QBO, and what we've seen this fall, extensive high latitude blocking this winter seems probable.

 

Given the mechanism behind the Polar Vortex, this seems almost inarguably true.

[wx_statman]

So you have nothing to say. Then say nothing.

 

It's obvious when you don't want to address real points. I've made plenty that you've ignored in this discussion, choosing instead to focus on nothings. That's not contributing.

You're right. I have nothing else to say to you.

 

My only hope is that you see the irony in your last two replies to me.

[Jesse]

My argument has been consistent from the beginning. You often take this tactic in discussions of trying to obfuscate matters rather than stick to the actual arguments, and I'm not going to play along and repeat everything I've said. Sorry.

 

There is simply no other way to read what you said, or what the others said, other than referring to the Arctic as the specific source of cold air masses. All three quotes, including your own, equated the Arctic as the source region. 2 + 2 does in fact = 4.

 

I am left to wonder, what are you trying to achieve in this discussion? I am not the one backpedaling, obfucating, and telling other members they aren't educated enough to contribute to the discussion. It seems, as is too often the case, you are making this personal. Not a productive approach.

 

We all have things to learn from each other.

The first three paragraphs almost describe to a tee what you have been doing for the duration of this discussion.

[Front Ranger]

The first three paragraphs almost describe to a tee what you have been doing for the duration of this discussion.

 

No, I've tried to focus on the actual points of discussion, as seen in paragraph two you quoted. You just don't like what I'm saying.   You cannot fairly accuse me of backpedaling, obfuscating, or telling other members they need to educate themselves more before contributing.

 

Way too much taking sides. Let's focus more on actual points, logic, and science, and less on this vague, silly personal stuff.

[snow_wizard]

Both were established Ninos, poor matches. 1960 and 2001 are close, though. Some nice similarities.

 

Nice to see real analogs finally coming into focus for us.

 

2001 had a dry October.  Certainly not a good match at all in that regard.  This one is kind of on its own I think.

[Geos]

A whopping 10.15" of rain here for the month. 1.05° above normal.

[Front Ranger]

What's more, the Arctic was actually quite a bit colder in the 1980s and 1990s than it is today, and yet the PNW still struggled to see top tier cold in January over that time frame. Going back to the regional aspect of the conversation.

 

 

Overall, the Arctic has been very warm the past decade. The warmest of the warm periods has been in the fall, as the open water freezes up. That's been the case this year as well. And yet, even though the Arctic has been very warm pretty much every fall, the most impressive cold air masses to hit the PNW the past 10 years have almost all occurred early in the cold season - while the Arctic has still been quite warm!

 

When there is a -AO (as there has been this month), the Arctic will almost always be quite warm. And yet, Russia and much of Asia has been quite cold. That's not a coincidence - and they didn't need the Arctic to get real cold before they did.

 

There are a number of points brought up here that no one really responded to. Would be interesting to hear thoughts on these.

[Jesse]

There are a number of points brought up here that no one really responded to. Would be interesting to hear thoughts on these.

I can't speak for the others, but I checked out of this conversation awhile ago. Not going to waste my energy arguing "counterpoints" to a point I was never making in the first place.

[Front Ranger]

I can't speak for the others, but I checked out of this conversation awhile ago. Not going to waste my energy arguing "counterpoints" to a point I was never making in the first place.

 

So clarify - what point were you trying to make in the first place?

 

My original comment in this discussion was in response to what westcoastexpat  said, and he hasn't denied that point as far as I'm aware. So keep in mind that while you were part of the discussion, you weren't who I was originally responding to about a warmer Arctic leading to less Arctic outbreaks.

[Jesse]

So clarify - what point were you trying to make in the first place?

 

My original comment in this discussion was in response to what westcoastexpat said, and he hasn't denied that point as far as I'm aware. So keep in mind that while you were part of the discussion, you weren't who I was originally responding to about a warmer Arctic leading to less Arctic outbreaks.

Not the only cause but probably plays a role.

 

Earth shattering.

[Front Ranger]

Not the only cause but probably plays a role.

 

Earth shattering.

 

And I never claimed you said it was the only cause. But the warmer Arctic and how much it affects PNW Arctic outbreaks...that was what the discussion started with.

[Jesse]

And I never claimed you said it was the only cause. But the warmer Arctic and how much it affects PNW Arctic outbreaks...that was what the discussion started with.

I don't think you or anybody else here is skilled enough to quantify that with any degree of precision.

[Front Ranger]

I don't think you or anybody else here is skilled enough to quantify that with any degree of precision.

 

Of course, just like many other topics we discuss here.

 

I was just, from the beginning, addressing the general supposition that seems to exist - "the Arctic is warmer, therefore it's harder to get decent Arctic outbreaks in the mid latitudes, because the Arctic is the source region. Duh." Note that this supposition does not state the Arctic is exclusively the reason, but it assumes a warmer Arctic automatically is a factor for less or weaker Arctic outbreaks, because it's "the source". In the case of westcoastexpat, he clearly was concerned about this upcoming winter because "the source region" is so warm right now. For reasons I gave, I didn't find this an especially valid concern.

 

The resulting discussion has provided some good information and thoughts from several people, I think, despite a couple pointless sidetracks.