The air is starting to feel crisp, the leaves are changing, and the aroma of pumpkin spice lattes are filling your favorite coffee shops. This can only mean one thing – it’s time for my annual post on NOAA’s expectations for the upcoming winter! And once again, one of the key players is found in the tropical Pacific. In contrast with the last twoyears, when we were looking at potential La Niña development, this year we’re waiting to see if El Niño will arrive in time to impact winter. Without further ado, let’s take a look at NOAA’s 2018-19 Winter Temperature and Precipitation Outlook and see how ENSO has affected this forecast.
As usual: Outlooks are probabilistic, so no guarantees
Wait, just one more thing before jumping to the outlooks. I again remind readers (if this seems repetitive, well, it is) that these forecasts are provided in terms of probabilities (% chance) for below, near, or above average outcomes with the maps showing only the most likely outcome (1). Because the probabilities on these and all CPC outlook maps are less than 100%, there is no guarantee you will see temperature or precipitation departures from normal that match the color on the map. As we’ve explained in earlier blog posts, even when one outcome is more likely than another, there is still always a chance that a less favored outcome will occur. And in fact, for the forecasts to be reliable (a critical part of a probabilistic forecast), less likely outcomes MUST happen from time to time.
Outlook for 2018/19 winter
Finally, the outlooks! Both the temperature and precipitation outlooks depend to a certain extent on typical El Niño impacts, but forecasters think a weak El Niño event is most likely. This means that despite the potential for El Niño, confidence in this outlook is less than we had than during recent strong events like in the winter of 2015/16 (more on confidence below).
This lower confidence is reflected in fairly modest probabilities for the temperature outlook, with the largest probabilities only between 50-60% for above normal temperatures in Hawaii, Alaska, and parts of the Pacific Northwest and northern Rockies. The other shaded regions on the map indicate probabilities between 33-50%, meaning that the forecast only tilts modestly towards above normal temperatures. And while no areas of the country are favored to have below normal temperatures, it certainly wouldn’t be surprising for some areas to experience below normal temperatures this winter. This would be most likely in the white areas labeled EC (more on that later).
Places where the forecast odds favor a much colder than usual winter (blue colors) or much warmer than usual winter (red), or where the probability of a cold winter, a warm winter, or a near-normal winter are all equal (white). The darker the color, the stronger the chance of that outcome (not the bigger the departure from average). NOAA Climate.gov map, based on data from NOAA CPC.
Now that the observed conditions are a little colder than their October mild winter forecast, NOAA seem to be blaming global warming and warmer oceans for the deep freeze.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
185 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
yarpos
February 1, 2019 3:25 am
On the Jo Nova blog a year or so ago there was a graphic with the weather bureau predictions for rainfall for a period (less rain/dryer of course) and below it was the same graphic with actuals . In was almost exactly opposite. As a testy young journo who had to do the weather report once said “its a prediction, not a promise”
Dr Deanster
February 1, 2019 6:38 am
Hate to say it …. but the old farmers almanac was closer than the multi billion dollar NOAA . LOL
The weather “models” are written to be politically correct. High CO2 warming effects & all other effects minimized or discounted.
Bryon
February 1, 2019 8:24 am
These outlooks are for the overall winter as an average. One severe cold snap and everyone starts complaining and pointing fingers on who to blame. I still think they were right on par as far as “average” goes. One severe cold snap doesn’t make up for months of above average temperatures. When it’s all said and done and the numbers are compiled, this winter will still go down as one of the more “milder” winters.
And while no areas of the country are favored to have below normal temperatures, it certainly wouldn’t be surprising for some areas to experience below normal temperatures this winter. This would be most likely in the white areas labeled EC (more on that later).
We will see at the beginning of March how e.g. the Chicago average for DJF really will be.
Wrong yerself, blindanddumb. The original NOAA “forecast” was for a warm winter across the WHOLE of Canada and the US — way above avg. Legitimate forecasters like Joe Bastardi said that forecast was ridiculous as the actual signals suggested much different. As colder weather occurred, NOAA’s forecast continually changed to get closer & closer to Bastardi’s. IOW, NOAA’s “forecasts” are not real forecasts, but Texas sharpshooter fallacies.
When our Met experts are able to give us a reasonably accurate weather forecast beyond the usual 3 days, I might start to believe that they know what they are doing.
So before the Politicians are so “Free ” with our money, lets have a few “Test runs”.
Say ask them for a accurate forecast for two weeks, then a month, then a year.
But all we get are something way out, like 2100, way beyond their and our life scans.
Its the classic case of “Kick the can a bit further down the road”. Or “Widden the goal posts”
MJE
Bindidon
February 2, 2019 2:19 pm
Nothing further to me than to downplay this incredible cold snap in North America!
Nearly -50 ° C At the end of January and beginning of February in Cotton, Minnesota speak a sufficiently clear language.
This seems to contradict the NOAA forecast of a mild winter – at first sight.
I want to use the example of Chicago to show that it is not that easy. (This Chicago example came to my mind when I read Roy Spencer’s warning in his blog about a cold wave expected to go below -30 ° C in Illinois.)
the data of the station “IL CHICAGO AURORA MUNI AP”.
And in fact, looking back, it reads that the station measured a temperature of -35.5 ° C on January 31st. This is the second lowest temperature ever recorded after January 16, 2009. The other stations in Chicago also reported temperatures well below -30 ° C.
However, if you average the Chicago temperatures throughout the whole of January, you suddenly come to “only” -5.3° C despite these days with -30 ° C!
And suddenly you can see that January 2019 is in the ascending list of months – from -11.5 ° C in 1977 to +2.2 ° C in 1933 – not in 2nd, but in 34th position.
And nobody would believe that the departure from the 1981 to 2010 averaging for January 2019 in Chicago therefore is not less than -0.9 ° C below average. Everybody would cry: “Nonsense! You go bonkers!”.
December was already warmer than usual at +2.72 ° C, following a strange November with 3.7 °C below average.
So we should really wait for March before looking back to see how right or wrong the NOAA forecast was.
Anyway, here in Berlin / Germany (there are some in the USA), it was exactly right – just like last year. Wonderful!
I and a bunch of know-nothing weather laymen will listen to Gregory Wrighstone’s presentation on the benefits of climate change before the end of February. When GW’s impending presentation was leaked, one non-member started throwing shrill verbal “rocks” at the organizers for the foolishness of the presentation and presenter. I was aghast! My experience had been that qualified scientists welcomed debate. Only those who are uncertain as to the validity of their hypotheses scream “Heresy” and “Heretic”, and vilify the debaters. Live and learn.
On the Jo Nova blog a year or so ago there was a graphic with the weather bureau predictions for rainfall for a period (less rain/dryer of course) and below it was the same graphic with actuals . In was almost exactly opposite. As a testy young journo who had to do the weather report once said “its a prediction, not a promise”
Hate to say it …. but the old farmers almanac was closer than the multi billion dollar NOAA . LOL
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/08/30/this-years-farmers-almanac-calls-its-frigid-winter-forecast-flake-news-thats-about-right/?utm_term=.a5335712829c
The weather “models” are written to be politically correct. High CO2 warming effects & all other effects minimized or discounted.
These outlooks are for the overall winter as an average. One severe cold snap and everyone starts complaining and pointing fingers on who to blame. I still think they were right on par as far as “average” goes. One severe cold snap doesn’t make up for months of above average temperatures. When it’s all said and done and the numbers are compiled, this winter will still go down as one of the more “milder” winters.
Wrong, genius. The outlook wasn’t for an avg winter, it was for a warm winter.
Wrong too, genius Nr 2.
And while no areas of the country are favored to have below normal temperatures, it certainly wouldn’t be surprising for some areas to experience below normal temperatures this winter. This would be most likely in the white areas labeled EC (more on that later).
We will see at the beginning of March how e.g. the Chicago average for DJF really will be.
Wrong yerself, blindanddumb. The original NOAA “forecast” was for a warm winter across the WHOLE of Canada and the US — way above avg. Legitimate forecasters like Joe Bastardi said that forecast was ridiculous as the actual signals suggested much different. As colder weather occurred, NOAA’s forecast continually changed to get closer & closer to Bastardi’s. IOW, NOAA’s “forecasts” are not real forecasts, but Texas sharpshooter fallacies.
Thanks for insulting me, beng135.
Mais j’en ai l’habitude, croyez-moi.
You write, in clear opposition to what was written in the head post:
The original NOAA “forecast” was for a warm winter across the WHOLE of Canada and the US — way above avg.
Can you show us the source of what you pretend?
Former NOAA meteorologist David Dilley has been kicking his former employer’s butt for years now with hurricane and weather predictions.
Next winter should be even colder based on solar minimum and further AMO downturn. The EU debate-has-ended crowd will get their turn in spades.
It’s been a pretty mild winter here in North Carolina. As a snow lover, I really hate it. But yeah, very mild.
Our children won’t know what unpoliticized weather is.
Admitted. Not all US have a cold snap, but how can they predict 20 year out, when they can not predict even a week?
When our Met experts are able to give us a reasonably accurate weather forecast beyond the usual 3 days, I might start to believe that they know what they are doing.
So before the Politicians are so “Free ” with our money, lets have a few “Test runs”.
Say ask them for a accurate forecast for two weeks, then a month, then a year.
But all we get are something way out, like 2100, way beyond their and our life scans.
Its the classic case of “Kick the can a bit further down the road”. Or “Widden the goal posts”
MJE
Nothing further to me than to downplay this incredible cold snap in North America!
Nearly -50 ° C At the end of January and beginning of February in Cotton, Minnesota speak a sufficiently clear language.
This seems to contradict the NOAA forecast of a mild winter – at first sight.
I want to use the example of Chicago to show that it is not that easy. (This Chicago example came to my mind when I read Roy Spencer’s warning in his blog about a cold wave expected to go below -30 ° C in Illinois.)
For example, in the NOAA database “GHCN daily” you will find at this address:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/all/USW00004808.dly
the data of the station “IL CHICAGO AURORA MUNI AP”.
And in fact, looking back, it reads that the station measured a temperature of -35.5 ° C on January 31st. This is the second lowest temperature ever recorded after January 16, 2009. The other stations in Chicago also reported temperatures well below -30 ° C.
However, if you average the Chicago temperatures throughout the whole of January, you suddenly come to “only” -5.3° C despite these days with -30 ° C!
And suddenly you can see that January 2019 is in the ascending list of months – from -11.5 ° C in 1977 to +2.2 ° C in 1933 – not in 2nd, but in 34th position.
And nobody would believe that the departure from the 1981 to 2010 averaging for January 2019 in Chicago therefore is not less than -0.9 ° C below average. Everybody would cry: “Nonsense! You go bonkers!”.
December was already warmer than usual at +2.72 ° C, following a strange November with 3.7 °C below average.
So we should really wait for March before looking back to see how right or wrong the NOAA forecast was.
Anyway, here in Berlin / Germany (there are some in the USA), it was exactly right – just like last year. Wonderful!
I love it warm(er).
Caution: be sure that your computer is fast enough to display the directory located in
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/all
(there are over 100,000 station files therein).
I and a bunch of know-nothing weather laymen will listen to Gregory Wrighstone’s presentation on the benefits of climate change before the end of February. When GW’s impending presentation was leaked, one non-member started throwing shrill verbal “rocks” at the organizers for the foolishness of the presentation and presenter. I was aghast! My experience had been that qualified scientists welcomed debate. Only those who are uncertain as to the validity of their hypotheses scream “Heresy” and “Heretic”, and vilify the debaters. Live and learn.