Just for kicks... The GFS...

[wxmann_91]

Notice the 1060 mb high over southwest Canada. That's one heck of a high pressure.

But of course there's no chance of verifying. Not only is this at 360 hr but model run-to-run consistency has been poor of late.

Still something good to laugh at though. Very rarely do models forecast such a strong high so far out in the future.

[Tyler]

OMG!! ITS FEB 1899 ALL OVER AGAIN!! SOUND THE ALARMS!!!!! LOL

Imagine seeing that only 3 days out. Oh man, that would be sweet. Oh well, its fun to look at.

[Extremeweatherguy]

Yeah, before we worry about 15 days out we should keep a closer eye on things in the Feb. 1st-7th time period. But, I think that a scenario like the one above at 15 days out would not be impossible...so in reality there is a chance of it verifying...with the colder pattern setting up I seriously would not be surprised at all.

[WaitingForSiren]

I am starting to think we NEVER will see a real arctic blast this year. CPC long range forecasts show above normal temps continuing over the lower 48, and based on what Ive seen i dont doubt it. The pacific jet just will not give up.

[Tyler]

I am starting to think we NEVER will see a real arctic blast this year. CPC long range forecasts show above normal temps continuing over the lower 48, and based on what Ive seen i dont doubt it. The pacific jet just will not give up.

I disagree, long range models are showing a pattern change to a much colder pattern, and they have been for days now. We will see some cold air in February. How cold remains to be seen.

[WaitingForSiren]

To be honest, if we got some snow/rain I really wouldnt mind seeing this warm pattern continuing. Here in Minnesota, every arctic blast means subzero temps for days, and you just cant go outside during that weather. I havent ruled out an arctic blast yet, but I think at best itll be intervals of cold, instead of one big huge bang.

[Extremeweatherguy]

To be honest, if we got some snow/rain I really wouldnt mind seeing this warm pattern continuing. Here in Minnesota, every arctic blast means subzero temps for days, and you just cant go outside during that weather. I havent ruled out an arctic blast yet, but I think at best itll be intervals of cold, instead of one big huge bang.

I have a completely different take...I think we are in for a nationwide blast (east of the rockies) somtime in early to mid Feb. I know subzero days are not so fun for you guys, and I would probably die in that kind of weather, but I think that you guys may have a string of them in your future.

[wxmann_91]

As expected, the 18Z GFS backs off on the huge high solution... only 1040 mb now.

It no longer shows a huge upper-low feature off the Calif coast spewing heavy rain into S. Cal as it did the last 0Z run.



Yes... it's the GFS past 180 hr, but still interesting to look at if you're as bored with this weather pattern as I am.

Since this has turned into a Winter discussion thread, mods move this to the Winter Forum if you wish.

[Extremeweatherguy]

I think that we should not look at the GFS run to run until we are less than a week out. Instead I think looking at trends of models as well as the ensembles is a much better idea in the long range. Of course at 15 days out the GFS will change constantly, so looking at it for minute details is really pointless...looking at the overall picture is more important. At this point, I would say that the trend of the models is for a colder pattern in February...just how cold is yet to be seen, but with increased cold in Alaska the door is open for a major arctic outbreak.

[Tyler]

Ok, looking at the long range GFS past 300 hours is bad. But looking at the long range 18z GFS AND past 300 hours, thats just plain wrong. The 18 z GFS uses old data with new, and so solutions you see in the long range are more than likley wrong. And besides, don't look at the face value in the long range too much, look at the trends, and see what ensembles are saying. The long range on the ECMWF can be used as well.

[Jim Cantore]

OMG!! ITS FEB 1899 ALL OVER AGAIN!! SOUND THE ALARMS!!!!! LOL

Imagine seeing that only 3 days out. Oh man, that would be sweet. Oh well, its fun to look at.

at this point I wouldnt mind to see -40

[wxmann_91]

Ok, looking at the long range GFS past 300 hours is bad. But looking at the long range 18z GFS AND past 300 hours, thats just plain wrong. The 18 z GFS uses old data with new, and so solutions you see in the long range are more than likley wrong. And besides, don't look at the face value in the long range too much, look at the trends, and see what ensembles are saying. The long range on the ECMWF can be used as well.

Yes I know that the 18Z runs are inputed with not as good data. This thread was suppose to be a joke. Of course this is not going to verify.

[Jim Cantore]

could sombody link me that site?

[wxmann_91]

could sombody link me that site?

http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/nwprod/analysis/

[Jim Cantore]

thanks

[wxmann_91]

thanks

no problem