|
|
Post by STGOutdoors on Dec 19, 2018 8:43:32 GMT -6
We need a storm to follow.
|
|
|
|
Post by rb1108 on Dec 19, 2018 8:59:16 GMT -6
Models continue to show a potential winter storm beginning around the 27th. At least we have something to keep an eye on for now...
|
|
|
|
Post by bdgwx on Dec 19, 2018 9:15:19 GMT -6
The signal for a mid latitude cyclone on or around the 27th is now strong especially considering this is still 7-8 days away. However, it appears like this will be a west based storm which means we will be in the warm sector for it. Ensembles have low dispersion for this lead time and deterministic runs aren't jumping around as much from run to run as we would typically see. This is an indication that the pattern is more predictable and is leading to more stable model solutions than usual. Confidence on a post Christmas warmup and being positioned to favor rain over snow is above average for this lead time. Sorry about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by rb1108 on Dec 19, 2018 9:19:58 GMT -6
The signal for a mid latitude cyclone on or around the 27th is now strong especially considering this is still 7-8 days away. However, it appears like this will be a west based storm which means we will be in the warm sector for it. Ensembles have low dispersion for this lead time and deterministic runs aren't jumping around as much from run to run as we would typically see. This is an indication that the pattern is more predictable and is leading to more stable model solutions than usual. Confidence on a post Christmas warmup and being positioned to favor rain over snow is above average for this lead time. Sorry about that. What warm-up? It's already going to be above average going into Christmas. |
|
|
|
Post by rb1108 on Dec 19, 2018 9:25:13 GMT -6
I like the last days of December for a chance at a winter storm. The storm around the 27th is a cutter to our west. After that though, things will quickly trend towards cold and maybe we can get back in gear. But if it's west based, we will be on the warm side. So no winter storm here. Right? |
|
|
|
Post by bdgwx on Dec 19, 2018 9:53:19 GMT -6
The signal for a mid latitude cyclone on or around the 27th is now strong especially considering this is still 7-8 days away. However, it appears like this will be a west based storm which means we will be in the warm sector for it. Ensembles have low dispersion for this lead time and deterministic runs aren't jumping around as much from run to run as we would typically see. This is an indication that the pattern is more predictable and is leading to more stable model solutions than usual. Confidence on a post Christmas warmup and being positioned to favor rain over snow is above average for this lead time. Sorry about that. What warm-up? It's already going to be above average going into Christmas. It might get even warmer. If an 850mb low to our northwest and high to our southeast forms like what models are suggesting then we could be looking at 60's for highs on or around the 27th. |
|
|
|
Post by bdgwx on Dec 19, 2018 9:57:10 GMT -6
I like the last days of December for a chance at a winter storm. The storm around the 27th is a cutter to our west. After that though, things will quickly trend towards cold and maybe we can get back in gear. But if it's west based, we will be on the warm side. So no winter storm here. Right? Correct. This is still more than 7 days out though so things could change. But, based on what I'm seeing confidence in an unfavorable northwest track is above average for this lead time. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeffmw on Dec 19, 2018 10:03:46 GMT -6
So what’s this talk about a new Polar Vortex in January?
|
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 10:09:24 GMT -6
I'm not sure about the everyone freaked out part of this. It's basically talking a lot about what a lot of the discussion has been around here lately and even talking about the same scientist. They're not saying this is a certainty. You read the whole article and you get the picture. Could happen and they talked about what some of the possibilities are. I'm not really sure what's wrong with an article about that except maybe it came from a paper you didn't like. I think it is a pretty good article if you actually read it. I guess it's all ethical for us to sit here and say oh, it looks like, it looks like, oh my gosh look what Cohen is saying. Papers can't do that, huh? Let's not talk about science in print. I swear the print media is in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation now. I'm glad I subscribe to several of the major print news organizations because they at least investigate and use credible sources. Hell, all media is under fire now, but blogosphere, Twitter, and of course Fox, is to be trusted. One of the things that happens with these articles is when they go to the other newspapers somebody slaps a real sexy headline on it and of course the ridicule continues but nobody reads a damn articles they just read the headlines. We have a short attention span. No wonder Twitter appeals to some of us. The headline even has the word could in it. I'm sorry but trashing this article for any reason just shows a bias. It's a good article. It could also rain chickens. At least that would warrant a headline. You are assuming I have political motivations. Even to the point of deciding my political views. You also make the assumption that I didn't read the entire article (which is not true) based on nothing but YOUR OWN bias and then proceed to talk down to me based on those assumptions. When you assume... My point is that 40 years ago all the "what ifs" the article stipulates were described as "winter" and merited no headlines except in extremes. Is there anything mentioned as a potential in the article that hasn't happened previously? Nope. So why a headline? Why not the headline? All this new information about trying to figure out the polar vortex is pretty newsworthy. What the hell is wrong with that? You think many people know what the hell the SSW is? It's informative. They didn't say the world was ending or anything. I guess they should just quit writing science articles, huh? It was a pretty good, in my opinion not sounding big alarm bells, science article about the polar vortex, and how we are trying to figure it out. What is the crime here? It's been a pretty pertinent topic on this board for the last few days, but it's not newsworthy huh? I don't get it. And it's a fairly lengthy article and they covered the it might not even happen side of it. I just don't get what the complaint is. What somebody does with this afterwards is irrelevant. Can't blame that on the authors. I guess it's okay to talk about it here or to do it when you're limited to 139 characters but God forbid you write out a well-researched article in a newspaper because it may......whatever. Where have we gone? Don't tell me there isn't a bias against the print media. |
|
|
|
Post by STGOutdoors on Dec 19, 2018 10:12:00 GMT -6
Chickenado!!!
Anyway, teleconnections look much improved this morning. NAO tanking bigtime which usually means cold spilling down but not necessarily storminess. EPO now forecast to dip slightly negative. I've learned not to look past 7-8 days on those because beyond that they flip wildly.
|
|
|
|
Post by rb1108 on Dec 19, 2018 10:20:45 GMT -6
Apparently the EURO has moved the Christmas Eve/Day snow south.....shows maybe an inch around here. Would be a White Xmas miracle.
|
|
|
|
Post by STGOutdoors on Dec 19, 2018 10:46:45 GMT -6
Hold cold air building in Canada starting this weekend. Models have a partial release of it middle of next week. I do believe the cold is a comin'.
|
|
|
|
Post by BRTNWXMAN on Dec 19, 2018 10:58:15 GMT -6
I think the point Guy was trying to make is that the "polar vortex" tagline has been overused as a silly catchphrase since about 2010 and that the media as a whole tends to use overdramatic headlines when it comes to weather and climate.
|
|
|
|
Post by bdgwx on Dec 19, 2018 11:22:53 GMT -6
Look how far south and east that surface low is for tomorrow. For the same forecast time with lead time of 96 hours on the GFS it was near Little Rock, AR. Now with a lead time of 30 hours it is near Tallahasse, FL. This is a difference of 500 miles.
|
|
|
|
Post by maddogchief on Dec 19, 2018 11:55:08 GMT -6
Chickenado!!! Anyway, teleconnections look much improved this morning. NAO tanking bigtime which usually means cold spilling down but not necessarily storminess. EPO now forecast to dip slightly negative. I've learned not to look past 7-8 days on those because beyond that they flip wildly. Well that really sucks. Typically with a neutral or only slightly negative EPO and a tanking NAO, that means a historic snowstorm for the east coast. By historic, I mean the same amount they typically get in a Nor'Easter, but its historic because the attention span and memory of the general public is about 24-48 hours. |
|
|
|
Post by guyatacomputer - NE St. Peters on Dec 19, 2018 12:04:43 GMT -6
Why not the headline? All this new information about trying to figure out the polar vortex is pretty newsworthy. What the hell is wrong with that? You think many people know what the hell the SSW is? It's informative. They didn't say the world was ending or anything. I guess they should just quit writing science articles, huh? It was a pretty good, in my opinion not sounding big alarm bells, science article about the polar vortex, and how we are trying to figure it out. What is the crime here? It's been a pretty pertinent topic on this board for the last few days, but it's not newsworthy huh? I don't get it. And it's a fairly lengthy article and they covered the it might not even happen side of it. I just don't get what the complaint is. What somebody does with this afterwards is irrelevant. Can't blame that on the authors. I guess it's okay to talk about it here or to do it when you're limited to 139 characters but God forbid you write out a well-researched article in a newspaper because it may......whatever. Where have we gone? Don't tell me there isn't a bias against the print media. You answer your own question. The headline reads: Polar vortex could unleash winter wallop by January But then, if as you believe, the article would go on to discuss the emerging analysis of the polar vortex why doesn't the headline read "Study of polar vortex could lead to better winter forecasts" or something like that? The article does mention that the science is still developing and is far from completely understood or exact. It talks about how this winter could be very cold...or that because the science isn't completely understood the very cold may not come to fruition at all. Quoting: "Forecasting stratospheric warming events is still a young science, and model predictions aren’t always that reliable." It talks that North American may get snow and the east coast may get nor'easters...or that the analysis may be in error. That's not a forecast. And, given the uncertainty of the science as spelled out in the story it shouldn't be.
The headline talks about a winter wallop, which is indeed eye grabbing and sensationalistic. But the article offers all kinds of other scenarios that cover the gamut from the sedate to what the headline mentions.
I've seen this article quoted 4 different places now. Every one of them talked about that the polar vortex and winter blast, as if it were a certainty. Not one of them talked about the science or the other possibilities as discussed in the article. Every one of them sourced the Washington Post. Every one of them used more than 139 characters. Tell me that headline isn't misleading or, at best, incomplete. But how many people who see those headlines (including the sensationalized Washington Post one) or read any of those other articles will know that the "winter wallop" is just one of many possibilities. None. And they won't know anything about the science of studying the polar vortex.
Do you see the problem now?
And that's before we get to the fact that even if the "winter wallop" does materialize it would happen in January. That's when that sort of thing generally does happen. We had very cold winters and not so cold winters for decades. We've had snowy winters and rainy winters for decades. That's not news. That's what winter is. If it happened in July, yes, that would be noteworthy. But, January? That's a "dog bites man" headline.
|
|
|
|
Post by guyatacomputer - NE St. Peters on Dec 19, 2018 12:11:44 GMT -6
I think the point Guy was trying to make is that the "polar vortex" tagline has been overused as a silly catchphrase since about 2010 and that the media as a whole tends to use overdramatic headlines when it comes to weather and climate. That and it is completely misleading when compared to the content of the article. But it sells papers |
|
|
|
Post by STGOutdoors on Dec 19, 2018 12:38:45 GMT -6
Chickenado!!! Anyway, teleconnections look much improved this morning. NAO tanking bigtime which usually means cold spilling down but not necessarily storminess. EPO now forecast to dip slightly negative. I've learned not to look past 7-8 days on those because beyond that they flip wildly. Well that really sucks. Typically with a neutral or only slightly negative EPO and a tanking NAO, that means a historic snowstorm for the east coast. By historic, I mean the same amount they typically get in a Nor'Easter, but its historic because the attention span and memory of the general public is about 24-48 hours. It's better than how it has looked the last week or so...EPO has been trending down steadily so I think we are heading in the right direction. |
|
|
|
Post by Snowman99 on Dec 19, 2018 12:55:37 GMT -6
Lol
|
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 12:56:49 GMT -6
Why not the headline? All this new information about trying to figure out the polar vortex is pretty newsworthy. What the hell is wrong with that? You think many people know what the hell the SSW is? It's informative. They didn't say the world was ending or anything. I guess they should just quit writing science articles, huh? It was a pretty good, in my opinion not sounding big alarm bells, science article about the polar vortex, and how we are trying to figure it out. What is the crime here? It's been a pretty pertinent topic on this board for the last few days, but it's not newsworthy huh? I don't get it. And it's a fairly lengthy article and they covered the it might not even happen side of it. I just don't get what the complaint is. What somebody does with this afterwards is irrelevant. Can't blame that on the authors. I guess it's okay to talk about it here or to do it when you're limited to 139 characters but God forbid you write out a well-researched article in a newspaper because it may......whatever. Where have we gone? Don't tell me there isn't a bias against the print media. You answer your own question. The headline reads: Polar vortex could unleash winter wallop by January But then, if as you believe, the article would go on to discuss the emerging analysis of the polar vortex why doesn't the headline read "Study of polar vortex could lead to better winter forecasts" or something like that? The article does mention that the science is still developing and is far from completely understood or exact. It talks about how this winter could be very cold...or that because the science isn't completely understood the very cold may not come to fruition at all. Quoting: "Forecasting stratospheric warming events is still a young science, and model predictions aren’t always that reliable." It talks that North American may get snow and the east coast may get nor'easters...or that the analysis may be in error. That's not a forecast. And, given the uncertainty of the science as spelled out in the story it shouldn't be.
The headline talks about a winter wallop, which is indeed eye grabbing and sensationalistic. But the article offers all kinds of other scenarios that cover the gamut from the sedate to what the headline mentions.
I've seen this article quoted 4 different places now. Every one of them talked about that the polar vortex and winter blast, as if it were a certainty. Not one of them talked about the science or the other possibilities as discussed in the article. Every one of them sourced the Washington Post. Every one of them used more than 139 characters. Tell me that headline isn't misleading or, at best, incomplete. But how many people who see those headlines (including the sensationalized Washington Post one) or read any of those other articles will know that the "winter wallop" is just one of many possibilities. None. And they won't know anything about the science of studying the polar vortex.
Do you see the problem now?
And that's before we get to the fact that even if the "winter wallop" does materialize it would happen in January. That's when that sort of thing generally does happen. We had very cold winters and not so cold winters for decades. We've had snowy winters and rainy winters for decades. That's not news. That's what winter is. If it happened in July, yes, that would be noteworthy. But, January? That's a "dog bites man" headline.
Oh heaven forbid that they use those words. Don't you know what headlines are for? Should they just use the old standard Lookout folks winter's not over yet? I mean, come on. They said could happen and they said we could get walloped. Oh my gosh call the police. It wasn't a scientific paper. Newspaper headline. Go read up on that stuff sometimes. They try to keep it in the now and get it some attention. What's the sin? They got guys at newspapers that just dream up headlines. Obviously this one worked cuz it sure got your attention. I found it to be pretty mild actually. It is misleading for idiots who do not know what the word could means. Anybody who reads that statement as an absolute needs an education. I will not fault an author for lack of Education among the public. |
|
|
|
Post by Lovableweatherguy TROY,MO on Dec 19, 2018 13:06:57 GMT -6
I think the point Guy was trying to make is that the "polar vortex" tagline has been overused as a silly catchphrase since about 2010 and that the media as a whole tends to use overdramatic headlines when it comes to weather and climate. Has it really been that long ago? Wow, I thought it was really only like 3 yrs ago or so. We were all making fun of the news outlets (not local) using it for every cold snap/blast. |
|
|
|
Post by Tilawn on Dec 19, 2018 13:21:10 GMT -6
You answer your own question. The headline reads: Polar vortex could unleash winter wallop by January But then, if as you believe, the article would go on to discuss the emerging analysis of the polar vortex why doesn't the headline read "Study of polar vortex could lead to better winter forecasts" or something like that? The article does mention that the science is still developing and is far from completely understood or exact. It talks about how this winter could be very cold...or that because the science isn't completely understood the very cold may not come to fruition at all. Quoting: "Forecasting stratospheric warming events is still a young science, and model predictions aren’t always that reliable." It talks that North American may get snow and the east coast may get nor'easters...or that the analysis may be in error. That's not a forecast. And, given the uncertainty of the science as spelled out in the story it shouldn't be.
The headline talks about a winter wallop, which is indeed eye grabbing and sensationalistic. But the article offers all kinds of other scenarios that cover the gamut from the sedate to what the headline mentions.
I've seen this article quoted 4 different places now. Every one of them talked about that the polar vortex and winter blast, as if it were a certainty. Not one of them talked about the science or the other possibilities as discussed in the article. Every one of them sourced the Washington Post. Every one of them used more than 139 characters. Tell me that headline isn't misleading or, at best, incomplete. But how many people who see those headlines (including the sensationalized Washington Post one) or read any of those other articles will know that the "winter wallop" is just one of many possibilities. None. And they won't know anything about the science of studying the polar vortex.
Do you see the problem now?
And that's before we get to the fact that even if the "winter wallop" does materialize it would happen in January. That's when that sort of thing generally does happen. We had very cold winters and not so cold winters for decades. We've had snowy winters and rainy winters for decades. That's not news. That's what winter is. If it happened in July, yes, that would be noteworthy. But, January? That's a "dog bites man" headline.
Oh heaven forbid that they use those words. Don't you know what headlines are for? Should they just use the old standard Lookout folks winter's not over yet? I mean, come on. They said could happen and they said we could get walloped. Oh my gosh call the police. It wasn't a scientific paper. Newspaper headline. Go read up on that stuff sometimes. They try to keep it in the now and get it some attention. What's the sin? They got guys at newspapers that just dream up headlines. Obviously this one worked cuz it sure got your attention. I found it to be pretty mild actually. It is misleading for idiots who do not know what the word could means. Anybody who reads that statement as an absolute needs an education. I will not fault an author for lack of Education among the public.  |
|
|
|
Post by snowjunky on Dec 19, 2018 13:22:41 GMT -6
I say we all pour a glass of our favorite adult beverage and raise your glass and say Dilly Dilly and relax. . We have a long winter ahead of us with more ups and downs.
|
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 13:37:12 GMT -6
I think the point Guy was trying to make is that the "polar vortex" tagline has been overused as a silly catchphrase since about 2010 and that the media as a whole tends to use overdramatic headlines when it comes to weather and climate. That and it is completely misleading when compared to the content of the article. But it sells papers Still trying to figure out what you guys find misleading about this. It mentions Polar Vortex and says it could happen. You guys are talking about the possibility here lately. Are you guys trying to mislead us? Polar vortex is the language of the day and we all use it. What's the problem? People identify with it. Are they supposed to use headlines that don't catch our attention? Come on folks get over it. The big problem the original poster claims is that some people don't know what could means. That's their problem. It just the modern version of the newspaper article that comes out that says watch out folks winter's probably not over yet. Anybody who misconstrues that to think we're absolutely going into the next ice age really needs to learn how to read |
|
|
|
Post by guyatacomputer - NE St. Peters on Dec 19, 2018 13:48:33 GMT -6
That and it is completely misleading when compared to the content of the article. But it sells papers Still trying to figure out what you guys find misleading about this. It mentions Polar Vortex and says it could happen. You guys are talking about the possibility here lately. Are you guys trying to mislead us? Polar vortex is the language of the day and we all use it. What's the problem? People identify with it. Are they supposed to use headlines that don't catch our attention? Come on folks get over it. The big problem the original poster claims is that some people don't know what could means. That's their problem. It just the modern version of the newspaper article that comes out that says watch out folks winter's probably not over yet. Anybody who misconstrues that to think we're absolutely going into the next ice age really needs to learn how to read I explained the problem. I'm sorry that you can't understand it. |
|
|
|
Post by RyanD on Dec 19, 2018 13:48:38 GMT -6
The word "Polar Vortex" is doom porn to the average person thanks the the media. It shouldn't be used nearly as often as it is by the media. It is new jargon that few understand so they think it is the apocalypse. If the article used "Arctic Shot" or "polar air mass" then it would be just as accurate without the click-bait doom porn jargon.
|
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 13:49:12 GMT -6
I'm pretty much convinced here nobody really reads newspapers and hasn't seen many headlines in their life if that one really got them going. There wasn't a false word in it. Give me a break
|
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 13:52:41 GMT -6
I mean isn't this article simply restating what BRTN been bringing up the past few days? And then it goes with into a little bit more explanation? That's all this is.
|
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 13:54:52 GMT -6
The word "Polar Vortex" is doom porn to the average person thanks the the media. It shouldn't be used nearly as often as it is by the media. It is new jargon that few understand so they think it is the apocalypse. If the article used "Arctic Shot" or "polar air mass" then it would be just as accurate without the click-bait doom porn jargon. Okay, since the general public doesn't get it yet we must ban this term in print. It's dangerous folks. Of course you do that and then let it slip people will think it is really something different than a prolonged cold snap. People will put it together, or maybe they won't, whatever. I just can't believe because some idiots flip out over the word that people get so upset about it. There's no shortage of stupid people in this country and it's proven every day. Why are you all so surprised? One of these days people will sit back and realize we lived through multiple polar vortexes and survived. Oh boy |
|
|
|
Post by mchafin on Dec 19, 2018 14:11:04 GMT -6
The word "Polar Vortex" is doom porn to the average person thanks the the media. It shouldn't be used nearly as often as it is by the media. It is new jargon that few understand so they think it is the apocalypse. If the article used "Arctic Shot" or "polar air mass" then it would be just as accurate without the click-bait doom porn jargon. Okay, since the general public doesn't get it yet we must ban this term in print. It's dangerous folks. Of course you do that and then let it slip people will think it is really something different than a prolonged cold snap. People will put it together, or maybe they won't, whatever. I just can't believe because some idiots flip out over the word that people get so upset about it. There's no shortage of stupid people in this country and it's proven every day. Why are you all so surprised? One of these days people will sit back and realize we lived through multiple polar vortexes and survived. Oh boy So back in the day, "Arctic Blast!" was used when showing a powerful cold front coming from the great North. People got the picture. And frankly, I don't understand the concern here. In the grand scheme of things, it won't matter for another 2 weeks anyway. |
|
