A Big Difference Between 1960 and 2003

[donsutherland1]

By late November 1960, there was already a tendency for above-normal height anomalies to hook up across North America (see animation at end of message) even spectacularly across almost the entire Northern Hemisphere for a brief period of time. Each time this happened, colder air (below normal temperatures) was soon headed south, later to plunge into the United States.

November 28-December 7, 1960 500mb Geopotential Height Anomalies:
<img src="http://www5.wright-weather.com/bb/attachment.php?s=&postid=131780">

<b>Note:</b> For those not familiar with such charts, the greens, yellows, oranges, reds, and browns indicate above normal height anomalies; the blues and purples indicate below normal height anomalies.

So far, such a tendency has not manifested itself at all this season. Thus, the implication remains that no severe cold is likely through at least the first week in December and likely beyond, even as the first week in December increasingly looks to have below normal readings as a whole.

This is a big difference from 1960, but one worth mentioning given all the earlier discussion pertaining to various analogs including that of Winter 1960-61.

[RNS]

Don...1960/61 is IMO not even an analog. Not for december not for any month let alone the season. neither is 1979/80.

1979/80 is disaster for those using it in their composites...lets take a look at why...

first of all 1979/80 was a sun max winter (for SS#21)...the data below compares 10.7cm radio flux in 1979 as compared to 2003:

1979 2030 2041 1858 1738 1652 1803 1659 1727 2002 2179 2317 2035

2003 1440 1245 1322 1263 1162 1293 1277 1221 1122 1513

it practically goes without saying...there is little comparison here. solar flux in 1979 was best analogged to the 2001/02 winter...those values are shown below:

2001 1666 1467 1777 1781 1479 1737 1313 1631 2338 2081 2127 2356

bottom line...as it relates to solar activity...1979/80 is a horrid analog.

for the remainder of the analogs...consault the link below:

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/correlation/solar.data

now we have the tropical formation factor in the Atlantic basin. the figures below compare activity in 1979/80 as compared to that of 2003:

2003 tracks and intensity:



1979 tracks and intensity:



1979 tropical info from unisys:

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane ... index.html

2003 info from unisys:

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane ... index.html

2003 experiended near record tropical activity...in total 19 systems formed...1979 featured a lackluster 9 total systems.

Lets now compare the pascific activity in 1979 as compared to 2003:

1979 EPAC track and intensity chart:



http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane ... index.html

2003 track and intensity:



http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane ... index.html

in 1979...the pacific was slightly more active than the atlantic...which would indicate a dominating pacific signal during the NH winter...we can also draw the conclusion from the lack of actiivty in 1979 that the ATC was entering the weak phase (as it was)...leading to reduced blocking and a more zonal flow in the northern hemisphere. remember a weak Atlantic thermohaline indicates tha tthe colder regions are cooler relative to normal and the tropical regions warmer... decreasing heat distribution and leading to a sharper thermal gradient between the high latitudes and the equatorial regions...promoting a zonal pattern and less in the way of blocking potential (reviewed in our winter outlook).

So in 1979 we not only had very high solar activity comparable to 2001/02...but we also had the overriding tendency for a dominating pacific signal and decreased blocking. these features are the exact opposite of what we are dealing with this year.

2003 was more active in the atlantic than the pacific (denoting a dominating atlantic signal...if no strong El Nino or la nina is present)...and telegraphing a strong ATC (reduced thermal gradient...more even distribution of heat...above average TC activity...and high latitude blocking tendency). a record season such as this combined with the evolution of the Atlantic SSTA profiles would argue for a negative NAO about 50-75% of the time this winter (IOW strongly negative NAO).

this now brings me to northern hemispheric snowcover...1979 featured significantly below normal snowcover...while 2003 (after the slow start) saw the third most expansive snowcover on record behind 1972 and 1976. This was a remarkable turn around...and a very notworthy occurance.

why?...because expansive...deep northern hemispheric snowcover can argue for a strongly negative Arctic oscillation in winter. this is because the snowcover strengthens the siberian high which can promte a mainly negative AO. this was the case last winter...as the arctic oscillation spent most of the winter in the tank...and may once again prove as an accurate predictor of the AO favored phase this winter.

overall in the short-term...there have been many similarities betwen 1979 and 2003...however the overall trend of the pattern in both years do not agree. as is the case with 1960.

[Stormsfury]

Since were correlating hurricane seasons within the analogs ... 1960 isn't a match either ... yes, there was a blockbuster storm in both 1960 and 2003 (Donna, and Isabel, respectively ... but take a look at the hurricane maps and see what's drastically different) ....

1960


2003


Ummm ... quite different, isn't it? ...

And for fun, let's throw in 1947 ... (Since EUROPE has it's worst heat wave this year since 1947) ...



Also, drastically different ...

Analogs are a great tool in probing past weather and putting a potential pattern together, but IMHO, I can't weigh one analog to the other, and I stand by thoughts being 2003 is a stand-alone year ...

SF

[WEATHER53]

To talk about sun maxes and solar fluxes as the reasoning to dismiss the 1979-80 analog is purely foolish and will prove to be wrong. Results is what counts in weather and not methodology. The are over a half dozen major similarites and down right identicals to 1979 and this year as far as resultant weather, and look for that to continue. I know dismissing 79-80 is useful if touting a snowy and cold winter for the mid atlantic is on the table, otherwise there is no purpose served.

[NEwxgirl]

To talk about sun maxes and solar fluxes as the reasoning to dismiss the 1979-80 analog is purely foolish and will prove to be wrong. Results is what counts in weather and not methodology. The are over a half dozen major similarites and down right identicals to 1979 and this year as far as resultant weather, and look for that to continue. I know dismissing 79-80 is useful if touting a snowy and cold winter for the mid atlantic is on the table, otherwise there is no purpose served.

Actually the effects of the sun maximum in choosing analogs is very important. one of the reasons why 1979-80 saw presistent southeast ridging was thanks to the high solar flux, just like it was in 2001-02 this is because the effect of the high solar flux is the greatest in the mid-latitudes (promotes ridging). take that feature out of the equation and 1979-80 is less of an analog, compare northern hemispheric snowfall then tropical cyclone activity in 1979 to 2003 and the similarity decreases even more.

and why are RNS and I so sure about these things you ask, its because 1979-80 was one of our three primary analogs to the 2001-02 winter. and if we were so anxious to call for a winter like last don't you think that we would be really into the 1960-61 analog. but were not either.

all of the reasons that RNS pointed out are based on valid and proven meteorological reasoning (as you know). besides, you don't have to get all defensive about it, were just talking.

Solar terrestrial activity report - (Jan Alvestad)>>>>

http://www.dxlc.com/solar/

[donsutherland1]

Weather53,

I believe what's at hand is not an attempt by those who favor snow to try to fight off a reality that they would prefer to avoid but rather a fundamental difference as to methodology, which leads to differing results. At the end of the winter, we'll see how Winter 2003-04 fares against the various expectations.

The fundamental difference in approach appears to be what can be described as an "inside the black box" approach and an "outside the black box" approach.

Those operating from "inside the black box" argue that the key to forecasting the season is understanding the various factors or causes that lead to given weather situations. Hence, ENSO, QBO, Solar Flux, SSTAs, etc., are considered, relationships between such factors and the weather noted, analog years identified from such factors and relationships, and then the forecast is made.

Those operating "outside the black box" focus on the resultant weather. Various reasons might exist for such an approach i.e., the number, combination, and workings of factors/causes of weather are not fully identified, fully known, are not fully captured in what indices exist today, etc. Hence, if one is to forecast the coming season, one should focus not on factors that can't readily be assessed to the degree necessary for high forecasting confidence but the resultant weather, which serves as a proxy for such factors.

There's nothing wrong with proceeding from either approach. Sometimes both approaches can lead to similar results e.g., my Washington, DC seasonal snowfall forecast of 13"-18" is not all that different from KA's.

When such discussions as the relevance of the 1979-80 analog, etc., arise, most of us are discussing matters from an "inside the black box" approach hence differences regarding solar flux, etc. are mentioned. This does not mean that we seek to be disrespectful of other approaches that may lead to this or other analogs being selected as the best analog. It just means that from our approach, some difficulties might exist. In the end, the weather will be the ultimate judge.

Finally, there's no question that KA's outstanding record speaks for itself and from past posts RNS has mentioned his high respect for both KA and you.

[WEATHER53]

Don-I like you and respect you but that is all just a bit to valilla for me. Again focusing on results, we have ther results and track record. Now if a newcomer wants to talk about sun fluxes and a half dozen other minor players in an attempt to put his/her first or second seaonal outlook ever out to the public, keeping in mind that for every post there are about 20 views-a 20 to 1 ratio which shows me a lot of people browse here but do not post here presumably looking for solid info, while denegrating the 79-80 analog then I will be rather stern in my counter proposal to the public to disregard the conjecture that those minor players are determinate of seasonal outcomes. It is also a bit odd that whenever I post to RNS, the girl responds, and as to her assertions that I was "all defensive" when you uses the words "disaster" and "horrid" in refernce to the analog year provided by seasoned long range forecasters then you may well expect a strong response.

[NEwxgirl]

disregard the conjecture that those minor players are determinate of seasonal outcomes.

Those half-dozen minor factors that were "overlooked" in 2001-02 made all the difference in the world as to the outcome of the winter. and our forecast isin't for a snowy winter in the big cities, its for normal to maybe slightly above normal snowfall. The areas where we do think above or much above normal snowfall will be seen are in portions of the southeast and interior mid atlantic, and northeast, once 50-100 miles inland from the major cities. in other words the appalachains.

This does not mean that we seek to be disrespectful of other approaches that may lead to this or other analogs being selected as the best analog. It just means that from our approach, some difficulties might exist. In the end, the weather will be the ultimate judge.

I said a few times before that the method you and keith Allen use is very interesting, and based on your record, serves its purpose very well. We've been doing seasonal forecasting for 4 years now, so eventhough we haven't been doing it for as long as the two of you, we're not exactly new at this either.

[Anonymous]

To talk about sun maxes and solar fluxes as the reasoning to dismiss the 1979-80 analog is purely foolish and will prove to be wrong. Results is what counts in weather and not methodology. The are over a half dozen major similarites and down right identicals to 1979 and this year as far as resultant weather, and look for that to continue. I know dismissing 79-80 is useful if touting a snowy and cold winter for the mid atlantic is on the table, otherwise there is no purpose served.

ur 1979-80 analog is in deep trouble. It was in trouble when you announced it and its in trouble now. Just look at the precip differences between nov 79 and Nov 03 and take a look at the ensembles---but you havent busted yet....but soon.

[Guest]

To talk about sun maxes and solar fluxes as the reasoning to dismiss the 1979-80 analog is purely foolish and will prove to be wrong. Results is what counts in weather and not methodology. The are over a half dozen major similarites and down right identicals to 1979 and this year as far as resultant weather, and look for that to continue. I know dismissing 79-80 is useful if touting a snowy and cold winter for the mid atlantic is on the table, otherwise there is no purpose served.

ur 1979-80 analog is in deep trouble. It was in trouble when you announced it and its in trouble now. Just look at the precip differences between nov 79 and Nov 03 and take a look at the ensembles---but you havent busted yet....but soon.

Ji and the others is pretty much correct. I myself never liked 79-80 for obvious reasons already stated which i am a little suprised at how KA has done so remarkedly well considering he doesnt use all the info avail as you have stated. I will add as well that past track records means crap imo its now that counts. And like everyone else KA has busted before which imo i feel he will do so again. And i will add before you jump the gun that i have been doing this kinda stuff for quite a few years (Over 10)and just didnt start doing this in the last years or so. Yea this is my first (Public Seasonal outlook) but thats as far as that goes. Dont get me wrong i think KA is pretty good i just feel this year he will bust which i will bring all of these threads back up at the end of the season to see how we all faired bust or no bust! Speaking of which i need to go into the tropical forum and dig up some old post (Have a look at my sig below as to why and then look at the post back in spring in the tropical forum;) ) Perhaps i need to start sharing a bit more of my knowlege here so some can get a better idea of what i do know etc!

[WEATHER53]

79-80 analog continues right on track, 79 December was chilly early and then moderated after first 5 or so days, same thing again this year.

[Anonymous]

79-80 analog continues right on track, 79 December was chilly early and then moderated after first 5 or so days, same thing again this year.

so did probably 50 other winters..

you better hope Im wearing shorts and a tee shirt in Mid Dec:)