Merry Christmas! The best numerical weather prediction models in the world have been churning out 5-day forecasts for the past few days that will make someone pull their hair out. The main question is how far east will the major extratropical cyclone or blizzard develop over the Atlantic off of New England. The track details will determine who will get a dusting of snow and who could possibly get 1-2 feet. As the event unfolds, this post will provide additional links.
Current precipitation totals from the NAM 00z model for December 25, 2010 for liquid is well over an inch over most of Southern New England. A 1o to 1 ratio for snow to rain along with blizzard winds will make early week travel as bad as at Heathrow, where snow can be a “very rare and exciting event”.
From meteorologist Ray Hawthorne, fellow FSU grad:
This is one of the most complex forecasts I’ve seen since the infamous, so-called Blizzard of 2000. There appear to be four distinct shortwaves — one along the Texas Gulf coast, another in the Middle/Upper Mississippi Valley, a third in the Middle Missouri Valley, and a fourth in western Ontario province, Canada. The numerical models are having an extremely difficult time handling the interaction of these four waves. Even worse, the model initial conditions earlier today were not very good (see NCEP model diagnostic discussion). Add in the Gulf Stream and what is a gradual breakdown of the high-latitude blocking we’ve seen for several weeks and you’ve got chaos. That said, the trend is clearly westward in the last several NAM and GFS model runs — something that is going to be extraordinarily hard to ignore for much longer. The upcoming two model cycles of the ECMWF will be extremely significant because watches and warnings are going to be needed for many areas in the Mid Atlantic and Northeast fairly quickly. This is the lowest confidence forecast that I can remember seeing in this past decade.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
NWS in Gray Maine cancels the storm watch. However:
AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE GRAY ME
327 PM EST SAT DEC 25 2010
.SYNOPSIS…
…Blizzard conditions possible late Sunday into Monday…
.Long term /Sunday night through Saturday/…
Major winter storm taking shape and will begin spreading snow across the area Sunday night and last into Monday. Strong winds will also cause blowing and drifting snow and very hazardous travel conditions.
Low pressure begins to occlude off the Long Island coast by Sunday evening. The warm sector pushes off to the east while the main low pressure center lags behind to the west. Moisture will wrap in around through the warm conveyor belt and back into the low. This will cause an intense area of heavy snowfall to spread across coastal Maine and Southern New Hampshire overnight. Snowfall rates in excess of one to two inches per hour are possible by Monday morning. In addition…strong winds will wrap in around the low from the northeast. Winds just above the surface reach 60 kt at 925 mb. As the low begins to shift east and some cold advection begins…the stronger gusts are likely to begin to mix down. Expect many areas along the coastal plain to see winds of 20 to 30 mph with gusts up to 50 mph. This…combined with the heavy snowfall…will cause blowing and drifting snow with whiteout conditions at times. The hardest hit areas have been highlighted with a blizzard watch…from the midcoast of Maine down to southern New Hampshire.
In the same report Piers Corbyn predicts that south east Queensland will experience an heatwave of 38C temps during 25th – 30th December due to this unprecedented weather pattern.
Unfortunately we are experiencing constant rain and temps around 21C and I don’t see it turning around to a heatwave any day soon. I’ll watch this with great interest.
Blizzard Warning for NYCPiers Piers, he’s our man! If he can’t predict it, NO ONE can!
Hey I can see myself in that picture. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year everyone! Got to love the computer modeling. Snow, no snow, snow could go either way, get dumped on and blown away. No worries, we can predict the climate a century out. I still put more stock in a well trained meteorologist pouring over charts and graphs any day of the week. Then again when I fly, I’d rather have a panel full of “steam” gauges than the glass cockpit…… sigh.
Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays everybody.
I would like to start a polite discussion on this thread. To wit: it seems that alot of posters on this site ridicule the theory of AGW based on short-term weather. Before I get the backlash, please hear me out. I am very sympathetic to your cause, because I feel that out and out skepticism of EVERYTHING is part of what science is all about. I know that you guys get a lot of condescenscion, disrepect etc from the mainstream warming crowd. I personally find the backbone of AGW theory pretty convincing, but I am quite open minded on the subject, and I am fully prepared to entertain the notion that I am wrong about it.
With that in mind, let me also say that I know about the fact that many of you feel that the warming crowd is hypocritical because they point to warm anomalies as evidence of climate change, but dismiss cold anomalies as just “weather”. Well to the extent that this happens, of course it is unscientific. That does not mean that AGW skeptics should turn around and do the same thing in the oppostie direction. Short-term events are just that, short-term. Can everyone agree on that?
By the way, I am currently spending Christmas with my wife’s family in western NC. This is our first Christmas as a married couple. It is also the first Christmas that I have ever spent away from my family (in eastern NC), so you can imagine I have been a bit down at times. However, having the snow come down outside while we were opening Christmas presents this morning and the beautiful landscape outside now as I write this makes up for it a little bit. I just hope that everybody stays safe and sound.
R. de Han says
————-
You see, it takes much less energy to heat cold dry air than it does warmer air, or water.
————-
R. You either expressed yourself really really badly or you are talking utter c@ur momisugly@@ur momisuglyp.
So cough up with the heat capacity numbers for dry air and moist air as a function of temperature. This info is not hard to find and beats making stuff up any old day.
Groan! We’re supposed to be driving from eastern Massachusetts to Maryland on Monday, and returning the following weekend.
Oh well, a delay one day or another won’t make much difference.
Merry Christmas to all, and especially to Anthony and crew, who have kept this blog at the top of my must-visit list for the past year. I love hearing professionals talk shop, even when it is over my head.
/Mr Lynn
LazyTeenager says:
December 25, 2010 at 2:38 pm
“R. You either expressed yourself really really badly or you are talking utter c@ur momisugly@@ur momisuglyp.
So cough up with the heat capacity numbers for dry air and moist air as a function of temperature. This info is not hard to find and beats making stuff up any old day.”
LazyTeenager; Ron was quoting Joe Bastardi verbatim as you would have noticed had you read through the comments – so you’re taking it up with Joe now…
Hmmm, does Joe Bastardi know what he’s talking about? Where would i place my bet? 😉
cbmclean says:
December 25, 2010 at 2:06 pm
“Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays everybody.
I would like to start a polite discussion on this thread. To wit: it seems that alot of posters on this site ridicule the theory of AGW based on short-term weather. ”
You say it is a ‘theory’. In that case, it has to be falsifiable. Now, Mr. Petoukhov from the PIK (Institute for climate change impacts; a German institute founded for the cause of AGW) has ‘proven’ (by running a computer program) that AGW makes cold winters in Europe thrice as likely as in the non-AGW case.
Now, if it were a theory, we could say that through the results of said Mr. Petoukhov the predictions of said theory have changed, right, and that from now on a cold winter in Europe can no more serve as a falsification of the ‘theory’ of AGW, right?
So, what do we have here? ‘Scientists’ who retroactively change their ‘theory’ to protect it from being falsified. While being constantly supplied with all the money they need to keep on running their computer programs to come up with any new modification of their hindcasting to vary their theory further, just as needed.
Of course, such a ‘science’ serves no productive use at all, but is entirely self-serving, as it cannot deliver any prediction or projection of future conditions – it will adapt to whatever happens.
Scientific discourse must necessarily break down when the opponent does not play by scientific rules.
DirkH says:
December 25, 2010 at 3:39 pm
“Now, Mr. Petoukhov from the PIK (Institute for climate change impacts; a German institute founded for the cause of AGW) has ‘proven’[…]”
Another thought: Pethoukov’s paper came out in November. So he obviously started work on it after the last harsh European winter. Now, why did he do that at all if a harsh winter in Europe can just be dismissed as short term weather event? Oh, there’s another harsh winter, another 1-in-a-1000-years freak event, funny coincidence that it happens two times in a row. The Brits complain about 3 cold winters in a row now; i don’t know whether the winter two years ago was that cold in Germany as it was always cold and snowy, i don’t know, the last 5 years or so.
Now, the problem is of course that before Petoukhov’s ‘prove’ the ‘science’ of AGW slowly got into serious trouble in a Germany that experiences a succession of ever-colder winters. Something had to happen; somebody had to tweak a model to explain reality in the framework of the AGW conjecture. Now, his new model must be the new and improved ‘theory’ of AGW, right (until another one comes along, of course)? Unfortunately, the reports about his paper didn’t include the source code or a list of changes he had to do to the model so i’m none the wiser.
Conveniently, he ‘discovered’ a possible feedback mechanism so future instabilities could be even larger.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/global-warming-could-cool-down-temperatures-in-winter/?searchterm=petoukhov
Lowest measured temperatures in Norway last 24 hours;
1. Tynset -40,4 C
2. Røros -38,2 C
3. Grotli -35,9 C
4. Hemsedal -34,3 C
5. Drevsjø -33,8 C
6. Filefjell -33,8 C
7. Dagali -33,5 C
8. Bjorli -31,8 C
9. Finse -31,7 C
10. Hovden -31,1 C
Oh, and I don’t do the Hansen/Farenheit trick.
LazyTeenager, it does actually take less energy to heat cold dry air than it does to heat warm, moist air for one simple reason: it takes more energy to heat water than air. Since moist air contains water, well, it’s something of a given that it will require more energy to increase its temperature. You don’t need to know the specific heat capacity of water and dry air to know that water requires more energy to raise its temperature. Demanding the specific heat capacity of moist air when you apparently already know it is pointless. Quit being lazy and supply the information you seem to already know, or stop demanding it and look it up yourself.
You mean computer models can’t make accurate predictions? Imagine that….
DirkH says:
DirkH, your post reflects understandable confusion of a non-scientist (presumably) about how science operates in practice. I will try to sort through some of your misapprehensions:
(1) Petoukhov hasn’t “proven” anything nor has he claimed to. I haven’t seen that word used in their press release (which is titled “Global Warming could cool down temperatures in winter”), even though press releases sometimes tend to be a little over-the-top (see this as one notorious example: http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html ). He has found something that occurs in simulations of a particular climate model and other scientists will consider his work, look at how other models behave, try to understand better the underlying mechanisms involved and how believable they are, etc., etc. I don’t think most other scientists in the field see his notions as proven at all.
(2) This is how science works. Theories do not come in nice little packages that can be falsified by a single experiment or piece of data; even when data does seem to contradict a theory, the theory, which only became a theory because of a lot of supporting evidence, is not immediately abandoned just because some people who are ideologically opposed to its policy implications want it to be. Rather, scientists look more closely at the data, more closely at the theory, try to figure out ways in which the theory can be refined to incorporate the data, and what-have-you.
Perhaps that is only because of your own intellectual laziness. It took me a quick read of the first paragraph of the press release and a 1-minute google source to find out what model he used and the website for that model: http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/wissenschaft/modelle/echam/echam5.html The website says that the model is freely-available to the scientific community, so if you are interested, it looks like you can contact them. Have fun!!!
Seasons Greetings to all from Simpsonville, South Carolina where we are enjoying our first white Christmas since 1963.
Yep it do look good for a bumping back west, forecast for 20 inches.
This is correct:
Archonix says:
December 25, 2010 at 4:30 pm
LazyTeenager, actually it takes less energy to heat cold dry air than it does to heat warm moist air, for one reason, it takes more energy to heat H2O(water) than N2(air). Since air contains variable amounts of water, well, it’s given that it will require variable amount of energy to increase the temperature.
it is not simple, that is why the models are way off.
Tim
DirkH says:
You say it is a ‘theory’. In that case, it has to be falsifiable. Now, Mr. Petoukhov from the PIK (Institute for climate change impacts; a German institute founded for the cause of AGW) has ‘proven’ (by running a computer program) that AGW makes cold winters in Europe thrice as likely as in the non-AGW case.
Sorry, models do not, and cannot, prove anything. A model is simply a simulation of what might happen given certain inputs. The output will depend on the code that the model runs on, and not what happens in reality.
Right now I’m looking at a model that shows we will experience a level 3 flood on Wednesday. That doesn’t prove that a flood will occur, but it does prompt me to be aware and prepare for that eventuality. As I wrote the model that I’m looking at right now I should have a good degree of confidence that a flood will occur. However some of the inputs come from weather models written by other sources. i don’t have the same degree of confidence in those. So no proof until Wednesday.
For the model that makes cold winters in Europe more likely under Globull Warming, no proof until we see that globull warming.
Joel Shore says:
December 25, 2010 at 6:16 pm
“This is how science works. Theories do not come in nice little packages that can be falsified by a single experiment or piece of data; even when data does seem to contradict a theory, the theory, which only became a theory because of a lot of supporting evidence, is not immediately abandoned just because some people who are ideologically opposed to its policy implications want it to be.”
==========================
Ummm…..can you say….how it is supposed to work?
Obviously your buddies on the Hockey Team and the IPCC “scientists” operate on a different standard.
Oh the irony.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Merry Christmas from Atlanta, where we have our first white Christmas since 1882.
[Now just under 2-1/4 inches in the counties NW of Atlanta. More higher up towards the mountains NE of here. Robt]
Joel Shore says:
December 25, 2010 at 6:16 pm
“Rather, scientists look more closely at the data, more closely at the theory, try to figure out ways in which the theory can be refined to incorporate the data, and what-have-you.”
Well, that’s what i said – improve the hindcasting, that’s what it’s all about, keep the ‘theory’ (that is only existent in the incarnation of his computer program) alive. With ‘what-have-you’ you surely mean “re-adjust the past data GISS-style” to make the hindcasting fit better. I’m sure that’s also a misunderstanding of science i have there.
And as i said, it changes nothing about the non-existent predictive skill of the models; in fact they are now farther removed from predicting anything than pre-Petroukhov. Maybe with enough future adjustments “to incorporate the data” they’ll lose every last inch of even trending into one direction and then we can finally throw it all away.
This just issued for Boston. Looks like fun :
Statement as of 11:01 PM EST on December 25, 2010
… Blizzard Warning remains in effect from noon Sunday to 6 PM
EST Monday…
A Blizzard Warning remains in effect from noon Sunday to 6 PM EST
Monday.
* Locations… all of Rhode Island except Block Island and all of
eastern Massachusetts except Cape Cod and the islands.
* Hazard types… heavy snow and potentially damaging winds…
with considerable blowing and drifting of snow and near zero
visibilities. Scattered thunderstorms with snow.
* Accumulations… 15 to 20 inches of snow.
* Timing… light snow will start early Sunday afternoon and
become heavy by evening. Very heavy snow will fall throughout
Sunday night with up to 2 to 4 inches per hour likely at times.
The snow will taper to flurries early Monday afternoon. Winds
will peak from late Sunday afternoon through much of Monday.
* Impacts… extremely dangerous travel conditions will develop
by Sunday evening. Strong winds will combine with the snow to
create blinding conditions with near zero visibility at times
Sunday night. Widespread power outages are expected during the
height of the storm Sunday night from both the strong winds
knocking down power lines and the weight of the heavy snow.
Shoveling should not be done by anyone with heart conditions.
* Winds… northeast to north winds will increase to 25 to 35 mph
with gusts as high 50 to 60 mph especially along coastal Rhode
Island and coastal Massachusetts from late Sunday afternoon
through much of Monday.
* Visibilities… one quarter mile or less at times.
Precautionary/preparedness actions…
A Blizzard Warning is issued when sustained winds or frequent
gusts over 35 mph are expected with considerable falling and/or
blowing and drifting snow. Visibilities will become poor with
whiteout conditions at times. Those venturing outdoors may
become lost or disoriented… so persons in the warning area are
advised to stay indoors.
Re: janama
You appear to have misinterpreted Piers Corbyn’s press releases on the heatwave. He was forecasting an end to the heatwave in the bulletin I read, but I’ll admit that he doesn’t [yet] appear to have a handle on Australian weather like he does for UK. The version of the bulletin I read (for Australia) was worded awkwardly and it was asserted with a lack of confidence, in contrast to what we see for Corbyn’s UK forecasts (& for some of his forecasts for other regions). For those who follow along, there are patterns in his confidence & experimentation with new regions, as his team works to expand beyond their core geographic specialization (understandable given that they don’t yet have access to UK Met Office resources).
—
If anyone sees mention of Corbyn in the mainstream North American media, please let us now. CTV in Canada completely ignored his forecasts for the current east coast weather (which I can confirm were issued weeks ago — I read them then — while mainstream forecasting waited until a few days before the event). Here’s CTV’s most recent coverage:
“Major winter storm barrels up East Coast”
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101225/us-hit-by-major-snow-101225/
Note that Corbyn is not mentioned at all.
It would be interesting to see what Corbyn could do with secure & stable access to solid & sufficient resources. Certainly he dramatically outperforms mainstream forecasting in the core areas where he has had time/resources to build specialized expertise. It has become untenable for the mainstream to continue leaving him out of the funding loop.
–
Season’s Best.
Oh no, not the Corbyn stuff again…
Whats funny is that a couple of days ago one of the models AccuWeather showed basically called the storm then as what is being forecasted now, but they were wary of that model because of initialization issues and turned around and downgraded the forecast. Maybe that supposed error in initialization wasn’t so wrong after all 🙂
White Christmas here in central NC. First time since the 1940s in some parts (Charlotte). A rare and exciting event. Still snowing here at the family farm about an hour west of CLT. Probably 3-4″ on the ground.