Typhoon Tip

Just to reiterate ... this is a low-grade cyclone and associated parametrics, but having a disproportionately larger ( much larger relative to climo on such cyclones - ) QPF potential due to maximizing PWAT anomalous air mass transported up and over cold/isentropic burst. I don't have a lot of personal faith in the idea of this thing having a lag back low pressure and active CCB - or if so...would that even be strong enough to be appreciably larger than what happens from the front loaded IB. As it looks now ( as in at this time) I'd go with .7 .. .9 if asked, and it's probably pretty evenly distributed ... or more so than the banding that happens from deeper cyclonic mechanics

wow, so other institutions saw this happening too. awesome

Ha, not the most responsible take on matters buuuut, we did a tongue-in-cheek study when I was an undergrad and found that it was true! A corr. coef. existed between delayed or failed transmission of model products preceding storms that actually took place. not kidding. Someone would come out of the PC lounge of the weather lab to announce the MRF was late ...cheers and applause erupted.

Have been wondering that too, when the mid range attenuation would kick in. Models tend to lose 15 to 30% give or take as they relay through that range.

It doesn't matter who does it - just do it. like I said, the intent isn't/wasn't to shade anyone.

Not to bog down the rush ... it's fun!! But this period of time between really the 25 and Ground Hog Day has been in the indices for 10 days at this point. The greatest "non-linear" support has been 29/30/31 ... Feb 1 is still part of this total window, and could also be tapping into the background constructive interference. I want to start a thread for this, because I don't have a problem with well above normal/climo confidence for this particularly system. It would actually help it if the 26/27 event evacuates out of the synoptic scope sooner rather than later.

LOL... not meaning to be a dink or cast shade, just sayn'

It's pretty clear the GGEM is partially grabbing the low ... but only managing to shear/pull the pressure field west when it fails. I wouldn't trust this run, just sayn' what's doing there. It's significantly enough different in its handling the deep layer between the 00z and 12z to qualify as bad continuity. Those two runs have a different spectrum of implications between D.C. and PWM/D.E.M.

yeah, see I think it can. I mentioned this just a moment ago. It's really how much that geometry of the N/stream orients itself. Easily correctable from this range 'cuz we're not talking a major change there to lift everything.

There is a thread but might I recommend (Brian or Will ? ) that there be something more substance/elaborate/annotated/discussed as start? It's just an extension of this I guess. Anyway, this solution by the GFS is interestingly answering right on the heels of what Ray and I were discussing last hour, re the lack of true coastal storm development. This one's trying to make a go of a better coherence in that regard. In act, in fairness it's got one now, with sub 1000 mb ( granted not hugely so...) passing proximal to the BM. There's time to correct this all NW even more, too. I'm not sure I see why that can't happen frankly... It's really about the elbow of the N/stream out over Nebraska or thereabouts...if that kinks more SW-NE in orientation, this whole bag of isentropic bomb will plow farther N-W

Haha... It's like the GFS was late to the mid range performance, now it's trying to steal the show

I wish these event specific threads would lead off with something more substantive.... It should be a requirement.

Heh... I would at this point... there are no guidance that are zero on this thing. The causal aspect also appear straight forward, too. In fact, I'm thinking about starting one for the 30th, because that one interests me. LOL this one's an overrunning for folks that have a dopa dependency on blue qpf paint on wintry weather charts. yeah yeah

I don't know what your thoughts are on this ... but, the reason for that - I suspect - is the velocity soaked field. You know this, but velocity is expressed in both the balanced/basal geostrophic flow rate - which is high-ish because of the gradient being relatively steep through the period. But, also in the wave propagation speed... which via "Navier-Stroking" the mathematics can also be demonstrated as rooted back to gradient. Anyway, I suspect that 'leaving energy behind' is shearing physical observation of the above stressing.

i know it's 25-dollar words but it's wave harmonics - or lack thereof. The flow is too fast. The western ridge leading and during the 26/27th "continental overrunning bomb" is not oriented or behaving in such a physical manner as to set up better phasing - which is improved harmonics. Taller more robust ridge, blossoming as a trough is diving near the Dakotas or MN ..etc ... is what to look for. We " might" see a better performance int hat regard toward the 30th