[Harry]

Will add as we go along. Feel free to add your own thoughts in this thread.

This is a list of my analogs. As we get closer and a better idea is had about the Nina etc i will fine tune.

These include ALL nino to nina/nina analogs. Same Solar/PDO state as well.

500mb
 500mbAnomalyWinter1011analogs.png (17.99K)
Number of downloads: 4

Temps
 2010and2011winteranalogsTemps.png (125.32K)
Number of downloads: 6

Precip
 2010and2011WinterAnalogsPrecip.png (125.14K)
Number of downloads: 2


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Now these are only Nino to Nina/nina that ended up mod/strong as defined by achieving a TM of -1.1 or colder. Thus 66-67 and 08-09 have been removed.

500mb
 500mbAnomalyWinter1011analogsModStrongNina.png (19.12K)
Number of downloads: 1

Temps
 2010and2011winteranalogsTempsModStrongNina.png (129.92K)
Number of downloads: 1

Precip
 2010and2011WinterAnalogsPrecipModStrongNina.png (126.48K)
Number of downloads: 2


Note...
1988-89/1998-99/1999-00/2005-06 did not make the list because of the solar difference. ALL of them were at/near or just past the max. Yes it has a big influence on the pattern/temps etc across the lower 48 in the winter.

Wanna see for yourself..
Link to solar activity chart..
http://spaceweather....spotplotter.htm

Link to make your own temp/precip maps..
http://www.esrl.noaa...ata/usclimdivs/

500mb etc
http://www.esrl.noaa...plot20thc.v2.pl

Need nino to nina etc pre 1950? I'll try and do up a list and post it in this thread at some point.. All of what i posted is just nino to nina/nina solar min.. The others i mentioned are just a few of the nino to nina/nina solar max.

[uncle w]

harry I'm not an expert on solar activity but the long low minimum didn't prevent the warmest Spring and possibly Summer on record around here...If the ao/nao goes negative we will get our share of snow and cold...

[Harry]

uncle w, on 09 July 2010 - 07:35 PM, said:

harry I'm not an expert on solar activity but the long low minimum didn't prevent the warmest Spring and possibly Summer on record around here...If the ao/nao goes negative we will get our share of snow and cold...

Correct but this seems to be a common thing believe it or not..

Here is the March to June 1942 temps for example..
 MarchThroughJune1942Temps.png (136.12K)
Number of downloads: 2

vs this year..
 MarchThroughJune2010Temps.png (133.31K)
Number of downloads: 2

No not as warm but pretty darn close. Others had that look as well at varying intensities. I believe 66-67 is one that didnt. That just had the toasty summer in the ne.

[Jack]

I feel like I am saying what I always say, but it's probably because I do so much climo stuff for the Models site.

I have no problems using older analogs, but I think one needs to be careful with the data. For example, in 1903-04, average temps were different than now, maybe significantly so. In this area, average mins in winter have risen even more than maxes. So taking that year, and even comparing it to the 1950-2007 climo period can make a difference and tilt a map. Keep in mind, I have no idea if that winter was above or below normal for those composites.
I am now thinking that maybe an anomaly map based on AVERAGED ANOMALIES instead of AVERAGED TEMPS. For example, for IMBY, we would add the raw anoms and divide by the number of years. I wonder what the difference would be on the maps, but I think it would be different, and probably more accurate.

[Harry]

Jack, on 09 July 2010 - 07:51 PM, said:

I feel like I am saying what I always say, but it's probably because I do so much climo stuff for the Models site.

I have no problems using older analogs, but I think one needs to be careful with the data. For example, in 1903-04, average temps were different than now, maybe significantly so. In this area, average mins in winter have risen even more than maxes. So taking that year, and even comparing it to the 1950-2007 climo period can make a difference and tilt a map. Keep in mind, I have no idea if that winter was above or below normal for those composites.
I am now thinking that maybe an anomaly map based on AVERAGED ANOMALIES instead of AVERAGED TEMPS. For example, for IMBY, we would add the raw anoms and divide by the number of years. I wonder what the difference would be on the maps, but I think it would be different, and probably more accurate.

I think using those older analogs worked out great last year.. See 1899-1900 ( Dec/Feb ) vs this past winter. Both similar Ninos and almost duplicate results despite those *supposed* temp differences. The problem with the newer stuff is none of them capture the solar Min which we have not had since pre 1950. it is my belief that the solar has alot more influence on the climate them most give it credit for. Note how BOTH our warmest ever periods were during a solar max and thus 1930s/1990s. Forget the exact year. Thats me though.

[Jack]

Harry, on 09 July 2010 - 08:06 PM, said:

I think using those older analogs worked out great last year.. See 1899-1900 ( Dec/Feb ) vs this past winter. Both similar Ninos and almost duplicate results despite those *supposed* temp differences. The problem with the newer stuff is none of them capture the solar Min which we have not had since pre 1950. it is my belief that the solar has alot more influence on the climate them most give it credit for. Note how BOTH our warmest ever periods were during a solar max and thus 1930s/1990s. Forget the exact year. Thats me though.

Oh, it has nothing to do with them working, just the representation of anomalies on the maps. I'll give you a good example.

3 years ago, I made composite anomaly maps using current data in the files. I later added actual climo. During the heart of winter, the difference was most noticeable at higher latitudes where the current data was several degrees C warmer!

So there is a difference in raw anomalies over time, and a -2 on these kind of maps might be a 0 my way. In other words, a normal year in 1900 based on climo of that time, might equal a -2 using more current climo.

[Harry]

Jack, on 09 July 2010 - 08:11 PM, said:

Oh, it has nothing to do with them working, just the representation of anomalies on the maps. I'll give you a good example.

3 years ago, I made composite anomaly maps using current data in the files. I later added actual climo. During the heart of winter, the difference was most noticeable at higher latitudes where the current data was several degrees C warmer!

So there is a difference in raw anomalies over time, and a -2 on these kind of maps might be a 0 my way. In other words, a normal year in 1900 based on climo of that time, might equal a -2 using more current climo.

Again i think the anomalies are fine as last winter showed. I honestly believe that alot of this global warming rubbish is based on problems that get back to your other thread about the climo stations and where they are for starters. Get a chance and go and look at Lansing MI climo which dates back to the 1860s. I have seen similar results at other stations that have not been infected by development/the heat island found at all the larger cities that have seen massive growth etc. Plus as mentioned ( you for some reason missed it ) our warmest year ever came back in the 1930s ( forget exact year ) and again 1998 and BOTH were at solar max. Coldest ones came at the Min.. Yes that leaves doubts in my mind about the GW crap. Why i do not let it affect my use of the older climate stuff. It has done me wonders as you well know over the past few years. BTW.. I really hate getting into a GW debate ( what it is turning into because of your view on the older climo stuff ) in this thread and would rather do a new thread if you are up for it? :)

Anyways.. That is what i plan to use unless something changes in a hurry and i need to update my analogs. Believe it or not i usually do take some of the warming into account when i do my outlooks even though i have my doubts about the GW stuff. Not saying there has not been any GW either but am saying i more believe in the cycle theory. meaning that we have our warmer periods and then cooler. The solar seems to be a big player and to some extent the PDO/AMO/ENSO cycles etc.

[Jack]

Harry, on 09 July 2010 - 08:29 PM, said:

Again i think the anomalies are fine as last winter showed. I honestly believe that alot of this global warming rubbish is based on problems that get back to your other thread about the climo stations and where they are for starters. Get a chance and go and look at Lansing MI climo which dates back to the 1860s. I have seen similar results at other stations that have not been infected by development/the heat island found at all the larger cities that have seen massive growth etc. Plus as mentioned ( you for some reason missed it ) our warmest year ever came back in the 1930s ( forget exact year ) and again 1998 and BOTH were at solar max. Coldest ones came at the Min.. Yes that leaves doubts in my mind about the GW crap. Why i do not let it affect my use of the older climate stuff. It has done me wonders as you well know over the past few years. BTW.. I really hate getting into a GW debate ( what it is turning into because of your view on the older climo stuff ) in this thread and would rather do a new thread if you are up for it? :)

Anyways.. That is what i plan to use unless something changes in a hurry and i need to update my analogs. Believe it or not i usually do take some of the warming into account when i do my outlooks even though i have my doubts about the GW stuff. Not saying there has not been any GW either but am saying i more believe in the cycle theory. meaning that we have our warmer periods and then cooler. The solar seems to be a big player and to some extent the PDO/AMO/ENSO cycles etc.

I think we are going to agree to disagree here. What was normal 100 years ago isn't normal now, and unless you were showing a mean upper level pattern, or mean temps, the only way to show what the anomaly was for that year is to show anomalies based on the climo for that year. Yeah, it's hard to do, but there are times when climo changes quite a bit. After 2010 is over, climo is going to get quite a bump up for 2011 as the 70's will be out, and the 80's will start the climo period. To me, this isn't about GW, causes, etc. Change in climate is normal, and it has changed.

If you just want to show the pattern anomalies, then it will show that ok (although the closer you get to 0 the more effect there will be). If you are using to to show what our anomalies should be, then it won't be accurate.

I have no objections at all to using older data (although I do question accuracy of some of it, especially SSTA data). I just have an objection to how it is compared.

[Harry]

Jack, on 09 July 2010 - 11:43 PM, said:

I think we are going to agree to disagree here. What was normal 100 years ago isn't normal now, and unless you were showing a mean upper level pattern, or mean temps, the only way to show what the anomaly was for that year is to show anomalies based on the climo for that year. Yeah, it's hard to do, but there are times when climo changes quite a bit. After 2010 is over, climo is going to get quite a bump up for 2011 as the 70's will be out, and the 80's will start the climo period. To me, this isn't about GW, causes, etc. Change in climate is normal, and it has changed.

If you just want to show the pattern anomalies, then it will show that ok (although the closer you get to 0 the more effect there will be). If you are using to to show what our anomalies should be, then it won't be accurate.

I have no objections at all to using older data (although I do question accuracy of some of it, especially SSTA data). I just have an objection to how it is compared.

Oh.. I see now. Yeah those show what the departures would be but we would be using today's averages. Example..So if today's average is say 20 at MSP we would go with 16 instead this winter. Unsure of what their average temp is so don't take that literal anyone. :P See what i am saying though? We on the same page? :unsure:

[Jack]

Harry, on 10 July 2010 - 09:46 AM, said:

Oh.. I see now. Yeah those show what the departures would be but we would be using today's averages. Example..So if today's average is say 20 at MSP we would go with 16 instead this winter. Unsure of what their average temp is so don't take that literal anyone. :P See what i am saying though? We on the same page? :unsure:

yup, that's it, the literal interpretation of a map is the issue. Suppose climo in 1900 for a city for a time period is 30, but in 2010 it is 34. If the average temp that period in 1900 is 32, it would show up on a map as +2 then, but -2 now. It may not sound like much, but one is a little above, the other is a little below.

I guess maybe the best way to say it is that it would be nice if ESRL would climo-adjust all data. The maps still show the pattern of anomalies though. It's a tough issue because of the limitations we have for plotting. Most wouldn't notice or care, but I have noticed because I have worked with varying climo periods for some maps and have seen how they can change.

[Rainshadow]

Jack, on 10 July 2010 - 10:52 AM, said:

yup, that's it, the literal interpretation of a map is the issue. Suppose climo in 1900 for a city for a time period is 30, but in 2010 it is 34. If the average temp that period in 1900 is 32, it would show up on a map as +2 then, but -2 now. It may not sound like much, but one is a little above, the other is a little below.

I guess maybe the best way to say it is that it would be nice if ESRL would climo-adjust all data. The maps still show the pattern of anomalies though. It's a tough issue because of the limitations we have for plotting. Most wouldn't notice or care, but I have noticed because I have worked with varying climo periods for some maps and have seen how they can change.

One could just choose the whole climo period, granted its half baked, but wouldn't be coaxed within the current normals.

Not for anything, and this is very imby but I don't remember the last time Chuck got the direction of the winter departure wrong. I'll just wait for October 30th.

Lastly keeping with the 11 year cycle let me the first to post, I'm expecting a hot summer in 2021. :boat:

[Harry]

Rainshadow, on 10 July 2010 - 12:23 PM, said:

One could just choose the whole climo period, granted its half baked, but wouldn't be coaxed within the current normals.

Not for anything, and this is very imby but I don't remember the last time Chuck got the direction of the winter departure wrong. I'll just wait for October 30th.

Lastly keeping with the 11 year cycle let me the first to post, I'm expecting a hot summer in 2021. :boat:

Seriously? The problem i have with all of it is we actually do lack GLOBAL climo data from way back. Most of it starts at the end of one of our cooler periods and thus 79-80. Considering how the 1920s/30s/40s went across the lower 48 i strongly question anything that suggest that the period was so much cooler then now across the globe. the patterns we have been seeing the last few years is more common to those of the late 1800s/early 1900s see last winter. All the record highs etc/warmest year ever was had back in the 1930s NOT recent and the same holds true at a good number of other locations in this region and other nearby regions. Both the 1930s/1990s were during the +AMO/+PDO phase. It is reasonable to assume this was felt globally and not just in the usa. Thus my theory in cycles. My guess is all of the warming/gw talk will be a thing of the past in the next few years to decade or so. Again NOT saying we have not seen any GW but am saying i expect it to switch and start heading the other way. Basically cooler to warmer, to cooler and back to warmer ( wash rinse and repeat ) periods is what i am saying we have. This ofcourse does not cover the local Heat island stuff.

Chucks problems arise west of the apps typically. ;)

And wow.. 2021.. I'll be.. Oh never mind.. :eek:

[Rainshadow]

Harry, on 10 July 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

Seriously? The problem i have with all of it is we actually do lack GLOBAL climo data from way back. Most of it starts at the end of one of our cooler periods and thus 79-80. Considering how the 1920s/30s/40s went across the lower 48 i strongly question anything that suggest that the period was so much cooler then now across the globe. the patterns we have been seeing the last few years is more common to those of the late 1800s/early 1900s see last winter. All the record highs etc/warmest year ever was had back in the 1930s NOT recent and the same holds true at a good number of other locations in this region and other nearby regions. Both the 1930s/1990s were during the +AMO/+PDO phase. It is reasonable to assume this was felt globally and not just in the usa. Thus my theory in cycles. My guess is all of the warming/gw talk will be a thing of the past in the next few years to decade or so. Again NOT saying we have not seen any GW but am saying i expect it to switch and start heading the other way. Basically cooler to warmer, to cooler and back to warmer ( wash rinse and repeat ) periods is what i am saying we have. This ofcourse does not cover the local Heat island stuff.

Chucks problems arise west of the apps typically. ;)

And wow.. 2021.. I'll be.. Oh never mind.. :eek:

CDC I think has an option for a 1895-2000 average, something like that which would whittle away at some of the negative departures (based on the current 30 yr norms) might give a slightly more relative picture. I really don't have a horse in this race. Most of the guys up 295 at GFDL think AGW is occurring fwiw. I'll give Chuck credit for not going cold cold cold 35 winters out of 36. Yeah 2021 who knows where I'll be too. With greater chances of seeing it the other hot summer here should be 2013, that follows the 69, 80, 91, 02 cycling.

[Harry]

Rainshadow, on 10 July 2010 - 03:45 PM, said:

CDC I think has an option for a 1895-2000 average, something like that which would whittle away at some of the negative departures (based on the current 30 yr norms) might give a slightly more relative picture. I really don't have a horse in this race. Most of the guys up 295 at GFDL think AGW is occurring fwiw. I'll give Chuck credit for not going cold cold cold 35 winters out of 36. Yeah 2021 who knows where I'll be too. With greater chances of seeing it the other hot summer here should be 2013, that follows the 69, 80, 91, 02 cycling.

I know they are Tony. :) They just have not backed it with enough evidence to get me to bite. IMO.

Yeah.. Interesting you mention that option ( 1895-2000 ) because I was just playing with that. Brings me to the next subject.. can include GW as well. This has to do with precip trends be it winter or yearly and the PDO cycle.. Thus those 1950s analogs.. You get a chance run the precip departures for start of the last Negative PDO phase ( late 40s/50s and or 1948-1960 ) and then do the same for say 1998-2010. This really shows up in the winter.. Running it from Jan-Dec 2000-2009 is nothing short of incredible.. I then did by decade back to 1900. Pretty eye opening.. For further back i peaked at Lansing, MI which data goes back to 1863.. You have to travel back to the 1870s/80s to find a period as wet as these past 10yrs in this area. This is not really surprising to me though because i do know that it was alot snowier as well sort like the past 10yrs have been around here. I'll have to check Franklin out later on. Forget if the data there goes as far back but i am interested to know.

Either way the precip does not seem to be following any expectations as far as GW etc go if i recall correctly about hotter/drier.. Ofcourse a case could be made for the 1930s which were hot and dry.

Something to think about as well as far as outlooks go. Makes one wonder exactly where are we headed? Does it keep getting wetter or will it level off or switch back towards drier?

[Harry]

Now for a update on our Nina.. The latest from here. Remember this is daily.. Not weekly.. Some for some reason get it confused..
 2010ENSOupdateForJuly11th.png (11.11K)
Number of downloads: 1

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/anim/wkxzteq_anm.gif

I must admit i still have my doubts about the high end mod/strong Nina call's. Gonna be hard to achieve a Moderate nina let along stronger especially if that keeps up..Would feel better if those SSTs would drop a bit quicker.. Not ruling it all out but my doubts grow.
And yeah i know about what is happening out there as well. Guess we will see. Maybe i am rushing it..

[Rainshadow]

These enso models do pretty good with directionality, not as well with magnitude. Wow they really have ssta falling off a cliff this summer.

[Jack]

Rainshadow, on 12 July 2010 - 08:47 AM, said:

These enso models do pretty good with directionality, not as well with magnitude. Wow they really have ssta falling off a cliff this summer.

The Euro was an early one to show the dive (and it was blasted in some circles), but last time I looked, it was dropping faster than it had projected.

I have to give the Euro credit for a few things. It seems to have gotten the plunge right (even if amount was off some), and the euro weeklies and monthlies have shown the pattern well.

The weeklies sometimes were too warm, but did well with the pattern, showing the heat surges in the east. The monthlies were predicting above normal warmth from basically May onward since at least last spring.

You can tell the ENSO forecast was a big factor in the forecast for the monthlies. It did this when we still technically had a Nino too.

[Jack]

The Euro plumes look to have picked up on the change to Nina in about January, but not strongly so yet.

It has month to month volatility, April's shows it is running on the coldest of members, June all the members were too cold.

 jan.gif (18.98K)
Number of downloads: 1

 feb.gif (18.87K)
Number of downloads: 1

 march.gif (19.18K)
Number of downloads: 0

 april.gif (19.18K)
Number of downloads: 1

 may.gif (18.89K)
Number of downloads: 1

 june.gif (20.55K)
Number of downloads: 3

[Harry]

Jack, on 12 July 2010 - 09:44 AM, said:

The Euro plumes look to have picked up on the change to Nina in about January, but not strongly so yet.

It has month to month volatility, April's shows it is running on the coldest of members, June all the members were too cold.

jan.gif

feb.gif

march.gif

april.gif

may.gif

june.gif

I really like the middle of the road with this. Thus see 64-65. TM peak of -1.2 or so.. Basically something in the range of -0.9 to -1.3.. Rememeber i tam talking TM not weekly/Monthly.. :)

I'll update this as we move along.. Confidence is still pretty low at this point as far as the Nina goes.

[Rainshadow]

Harry, on 12 July 2010 - 10:00 PM, said:

I really like the middle of the road with this. Thus see 64-65. TM peak of -1.2 or so.. Basically something in the range of -0.9 to -1.3.. Rememeber i tam talking TM not weekly/Monthly.. :)

I'll update this as we move along.. Confidence is still pretty low at this point as far as the Nina goes.

1964-5 would be an early guess too (moderate after a relatively strong nino, would also get the -nao leaning at this point of that decade), just did a quick glance at the F.I. data, looks like it was about 28" of snow at PHL, about 10 of it in typical nina fashion after March 15th. I wonder how much of a disappointment that winter would be looked at after getting 78.7 inches this past winter.