2006-2007 Winter Forecast
UPDATE: This link provides both the summary and a link to the video for this season's forecast. This video is embedded in the page, so it's easier to get to.
UPDATE: Accuweather Senior Meteorologist Ken Reeves has a video where he provides a very good explanation as to the methodology behind the Accuweather forecast. Look in the video listing at the bottom of the window for the 2006-2007 Winter Forecast.
Well, well....I'd say the Hurricane Season was a bust.
Recently, Accuweather released their forecast for the upcoming 2006-2007 Winter Forecast. It differs a good bit from the "official" NOAA forecast. The primary areas of divergence relate to the areas that are predicted to be warmer or cooler than average and, most significantly, which areas will be wetter or drier than normal.
You really should read the forecast from Dr. Joe Bastardi and his team from Accuweather. He has some very valid points about why his forecast is different. NOAA is focused on the strengthening and significant impact of the current El Nino. Accuweather, on the other hand, thinks the El Nino effect will be much more minor and other factors will play a more major role. If you're a weather buff as I am, you'll soon note that Joe Bastardi and his team are more focused on historical trends, analog years, larger patterns beyond current states, etc. They do use models (for you Scientist readers...I am talking about the computer models that provide forecasts based on input data...
Some excerpts:
Unlike the National Weather Service forecast, Bastardi does not see this winter being warmer than normal across most of the country. Overall, the AccuWeather.com Winter 2006-2007 Forecast calls for a cooler-than-normal winter along the East Coast and eastern Gulf Coast, and a warmer-than-normal winter from the western Great Lakes to the Pacific Northwest.Also:
Bastardi sums up his expectations for the upcoming December-to-February period this way: "The eastern U.S. will experience a colder-than-normal winter overall. The area from the eastern and central Great Lakes to the south-central and southwestern U.S. will experience near-normal winter temperatures. The region that stretches from the western Great Lakes to the Pacific Northwest will likely see above-normal temperatures."But what about precipitation? That's where the NOAA forecast and Accuweather disagree the most. NOAA has a large portion of the country forecasted to be drier than normal. Accuweather on the other hand:
Bastardi forecasts a wetter-than-average swath from Southern and central California, to the southern Plains and Southeast and up the East Coast, because an expected active subtropical jet stream will send storms on a track across the southern U.S. and likely ensure wet weather in the southern tier of the nation. How this moisture times itself with the arrival of colder air will determine how much snow the Northeast can expect, but winter is likely to be snowier than normal in the region - a mainstay of all winters since 2002. Very warm water relative to normal off all coasts provides ample moisture for any storm and timed with cold air, would lend itself to heavy snowfall in the higher elevations of the Southwest and Southeast, and also the chance for some major coastal storms on the East Coast.Just like the Hurricane Season forecasts. We won't know the outcome until winter arrives. Then the forecast will either verify or fall apart. Forecasting is a science but I also believe it has aspects of art to it as well. It takes a trained eye to see past the model forecasts when things "just don't add up".
I for one would LOVE to see the above forecast verify. Why? Living in the Southeast we don't get much snow and when we do we like to take a break from life and play and enjoy it. Snow here is an event, not a way of life. I'm excited about the possibility of sledding with my kids! I'm rootin' for you to be right Joe!
Now Playing: "One of These Days" by FFH
Technorati: Winter Forecast, Joe Bastardi, Accuweather, NOAA
Posts
3 comments:
Yeah, some sustained snowfall would be nice! Just remember, though, that global warming is both the cause of more numerous and devastating hurricanes as well as fewer hurricanes. I don't know how they do it, but the global warming crowd is always right.
Mornin' Cous ~ I'm with you--I'd love to see some extra snow this winter. We're overdue.... As for the rest of the Accuweather forecast, here in East TN we're already on track for cooler- and wetter-than-usual weather....
In response to Chris' comment above: Yeah, that's they way it is with them slippery liberals--they always find a way to twist the facts or the story to suit their ends..... O:-)
As I've said before: Individual data points regarding contemporary weather patterns have little to say (positively or negatively) about the issue of whether or not the human-caused effects of global warming are contributing to those patterns. One must look at trends.
But that is not my point in this response...
As one who has been convinced by the preponderance of scientific evidence that humans have significantly impacted global climate change, I feel compelled to point out that from my perspective, it has (in the past) seemed to be the opponents of such a position that pick and choose their data to conveniently suit their positions, not the reverse. So, it seems we have each felt that the other is (at least partly) disingenuous.
However, I feel that I am beginning to change in how I perceive my political opponnents. I feel that I've a mission here on Greg's blog, a mission to deliver what I believe is a much-needed message: intelligent, thoughtful, and sincere people can come to different impressions of things, disagree, and voice their disagreement without being insulting or uncivil. As this current election draws closer, and the repulsive attack ads on both sides of the political aisle inundate us with absurd distortions every day, it seems incumbent upon rational and civil people to keep their heads and pay one another some degree of due respect.
I disagree with Greg and Chris's positions on global warming, as they well know from my many responses on Greg's blog. I have arrived at my position through reading, discussion, and careful thought, and my position is sincere. I am not distorting facts to meet my position, in fact I don't actually want to be right about this.
I offer you this: I believe that Greg and Chris arrived at their positions in a similar process, and I believe they are sincere in what they believe. And while I can't help but think their selectivity of sources reflects an entrenchment of sorts (and, I suspect, they feel the same of my choices), I do think they are honestly positioned according to their thoughts and values. I disagree with them, but I respect the fact that they are thinking, honest people who have simply come to a different conclusion than have I.
I ask for the same civility in return. I'm not trying to "trick" anyone into "believing in global warming." I honestly think that the scientific evidence is very convincing, and that if we do nothing to correct the problems we are creating, there will be severe consequences. Given the gravity of this, it should be perfectly clear why I hope to convince others of this. My motivations are straight-forward and in accordance with a strong value in our stewardship of this planet. There is no "slickness" in this that I can see.
More pointedly: We can discuss our positions openly and plainly without insult, I think. We each implement our choices next week and no matter how many names you call me, how frequently you question my integrity, I will not be convinced to vote according to anyone's values other than my own ... nor should you.
I think ad hominem tactics are meant to bend the political landscape by distorting positions -- they are not a part of a substantive and informative debate. Rather than concentrating on trying to "win" the political battle by devaluing and debasing one another, perhaps we should have a rational discourse where we try to explain where we disagree, what our values are, why we choose different paths, and--most importantly--we assume our opponents are just as sincere in their convictions as are we. We don't need to be moderates to be civil, we simply need to be adults.
Post a Comment