• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Pattern Freezing Ferocious February

Webberweather53 said:
Your and 1300m's interpretation of what I said was incorrect, I thought it was implied that this was an anomalous ridge because I'm pretty sure most of us are or should be already well aware there's a trough over the Great Lakes in the means, you would need a ridge axis >1-1.5 sigma just to break even & that's nothing to sneeze at
View attachment 3722
Click to expand...

What you said, referring to a ridge, was incorrect. Moreover, I'm looking at the shape of the height lines. The 558 line on that EPS map goes from near Vancouver, BC, to far southern OH. That's actually a deeper trough than the normals map you just posted, which has a line go from Washington state to far southern OH. In other words, the trough is actually a little sharper over that area of the OH Valley than is the normal despite the height of 558 being above average.
 
ForsythSnow said:
A brief moment to check on the boards and I see a debate on if colors on a map is a ridge or not. From my standpoint, the orange does not equal a ridge. It is an anomaly. It's like saying it's going to be cold in Miami if it's showing below average. It comes down to the intensity and the actual strength. For instance, what defines a ridge at 500MB? It's kind of like what defines a low VS a high and at what MB does it change? The anomalies in between the two centers aren't that above compared to the actual two centers I see.

While it's an anomaly, is it truly a ridge? Does the actual flow of air connect completely and at a decent magnitude,are they barely connected and barely touching, or are they completely disconnected and slightly separated? You also have to remember the resolution on these things this far out is horrendous, so it may appear in a way that isn't true.
Click to expand...

You would need an extreme ridge of at least 1-1.5 sigma or more displaced directly over the lakes just to generate zonal flow in this region, much less an actual ridge axis, up to that point you can still have a trough in the means but it's capable of turning blowtorch warm w/ a ridge that strong, the sensible impacts are nothing in comparison to an anomalous trough. Thus having a trough in the OH Valley in the means is virtually meaningless, it's usually there anyway except in extreme cases w/ a monster -TNH, and lends you little if any useful information on its own.
 
GaWx said:
What you said, referring to a ridge, was incorrect. Moreover, I'm looking at the shape of the height lines. The 558 line on that EPS map goes from near Vancouver, BC, to far southern OH. That's actually a deeper trough than the normals map you just posted, which has a line go from Washington state to far southern OH. In other words, the trough is actually a little sharper over that area of the OH Valley than is the normal despite the height of 558 being above average.
Click to expand...

The climatologies, gradients, and projection of the 500 mb heights of NCEP Reanalysis and ECMWF aren't directly comparable the former uses a 1981-2010 climatology, while the ECMWF uses a newer, warmer, and much smaller 20-year climatology as is also the case w/ the EPS weeklies on weatherbell. Of course the trough in the means looks sharper because it's surrounded by two ridges in both the Rockies and the western Atlantic but that doesn't necessarily mean the impacts will be the same as a canonical trough anomaly which is clearly what I was getting at yet.
 
Last edited:
Webberweather53 said:
The climatologies, gradients, and projection of the 500 mb heights of NCEP Reanalysis and ECMWF aren't directly comparable the former uses a 1981-2010 climatology, while the ECMWF uses a newer, warmer, and much smaller 20-year climatology as is also the case w/ the EPS weeklies on weatherbell. The trough in the means looks sharper because it's surrounded by two ridges in both the Rockies and the western Atlantic but that doesn't necessarily mean the impacts will be the same as a canonical trough anomaly
Click to expand...

I'm by no means giving in, but I don't want to keep this up forever. We're obviously still in disagreement and neither side will give in. I don't see that changing. So, despite my having both 1300m and Forsyth agreeing with me, I think we should just agree to disagree and not waste any more of our and the readers' time.
 
GaWx said:
I'm by no means giving in, but I don't want to keep this up forever. We're obviously still in disagreement and neither side will give in. I don't see that changing. So, despite my having both 1300m and Forsyth agreeing with me, I think we should just agree to disagree and not waste any more of our and the readers' time.
Click to expand...

You can have a trough in the means but a ridge in the anomalies at the same time, I don't know where the confusion is because I clearly implied that this was an anomalous ridge. Smh ...
 
i dont care what the fat ratts said today bout winter... buttercups are sprouting through the surface barely.... green wild onions are starting to come up in yard.... spring and tornado chasing weather isnt to far behind.... im ready for it.... light at the end of the tunnell
 
1300m said:
There is no such thing as a ridge in the anomalies. What, physically, would that even represent? A trough is a trough and a ridge is a ridge. Height anomalies are simply a climatological comparison at a given location in time of a numerical value.
Click to expand...

What useful information other than the derivation of anomalies & juxtaposition of planetary waves do you actually get out of the mean height field when a trough can lead to sensible impacts that ranges from 10-15 degrees above to 15-25+ degrees below normal. You do realize how big of a ridge you'd actually need in the anomalies just to get zonal flow there right? Even the stupid strong anomaly in the great super NINO of 1997-98 couldn't break even and there was still a substantial trough in the means there even though it was blowtorch warm.
SlNi3CP0CR.png
uT2VyFuewW.png
 
tennessee storm said:
i dont care what the fat ratts said today bout winter... buttercups are sprouting through the surface barely.... green wild onions are starting to come up in yard.... spring and tornado chasing weather isnt to far behind.... im ready for it.... light at the end of the tunnell
Click to expand...
I've had green onions all around since September, they mean nothing in relation to spring, it's a cool weather weed. The last half of February still could end up cold and snowy!? Hard to tell being Feb 2nd and all
 
1300m said:
There is no such thing as a ridge in the anomalies. What, physically, would that even represent? A trough is a trough and a ridge is a ridge. Height anomalies are simply a climatological comparison at a given location in time of a numerical value.
Click to expand...

Tell that to academia.
Screen Shot 2018-02-02 at 5.59.12 PM.png
Screen Shot 2018-02-02 at 5.59.12 PM.png
Screen Shot 2018-02-02 at 5.59.04 PM.png
Screen Shot 2018-02-02 at 5.58.58 PM.png
Screen Shot 2018-02-02 at 5.58.51 PM.png
Screen Shot 2018-02-02 at 5.58.46 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-02-02 at 5.59.08 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-02-02 at 5.59.08 PM.png
    75.2 KB · Views: 13
1300m said:
I feel like we are discussing two totally different topics. Probably best just to let it go.
Click to expand...
I agree. Those refer to an anomalous ridge, or a ridge that is not normal, while we were discussing how the EPS output is showing an anomaly.
Webberweather53 said:
You said an "a ridge in the anomalies" or as I clearly put it an "anomalous ridge" doesn't exist. Apparently that's not the case. Idk why you're suddenly confused by this.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we aren't on the same page I think. Let's drop it here or you two can debate semantics in each other's PM versus the February thread.
 
1300m said:
What is this lol? You are not making any sense to me. This is semantics. An anomalous ridge and a ridge in the height anomalies are two entirely different things.
Click to expand...

1300m said:
Stop it, now. Don't throw this back on me. You are not correctly describing what you are trying to say and are trying to play word games .
Click to expand...

Apparently ridges or troughs in the anomaly fields don't exist anymore according to you.
 
Webb, 1300 both of you are great ppl and brilliant with weather and science . both of you and Larry have great minds about this type of stuff, to good for each other. Please lets work together and enjoy each other talents, so the newbies can learn off yall. Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top