Typhoon Tip

yeah...this has been my experience with them over the years. They tend to not be significantly better than a coin flip beyond 14 days. Maaaybe some residue of usefulness very early in week 3 then seeya

So does anyone know how these multi week products are derived? You should know if you use them... heh. Kinda like oh, I dunno, AI GFS. I'm just wondering in pure speculation if these may get increasingly more climate weighted out in time.

mmm those products are suss. Not just because they are way the hell and gone out in time, either. I noticed looking at the Euro Weeklies and the Can Extended, they are showing cool anomalies precisely everywhere the climate models, and verification over the last 10 years, have been actually going the other way from late Aprils thru May. That's a bit of a creepy coincidence where these runs are targeting all the hot problem regions like that ...cooking cutting the known hot zones for cooler anomalies -

mmm. I'd say your 43 is believable

Ha...wow, add the Canadian Extended to the list... NO summer for you, ONE YEAR!

Some of the American long lead products are doing the same thing, though. heh...I've never been fan of the weeklies. Not gonna start being a fan of the CFS2v tickled shits whatever it is, either. I've found that beyond 10 days, they are not significantly more dependable than just running the regular ensembles members out to kingdom come. Until a D19 long lead is shockingly on point, I'l defer to those for entertainment

I'm actually surprised there's that much water in the air this early in the year. huh

Yeah... it really just looks like those long lead products are assuming the winter pattern never stops. I'm not necessarily offended by persistence - it is what it is. The onus is on Earth to change it. LOL Fwiw ... not that our druthers have any say in matter, but having neggie anoms in the 3rd and 4th week getting toward the arrival of he solar max isn't a terrible reality, necessarily, either.

Wonder if we're getting some d-slope compression off the ORH hills

75 ...73 at KFIT about a 7 to 10F MET bust. Brian can you confirm that?

67 70 next door at KFIT with rounding

Heh... we can't look at it this way. We can't categorize and package these up as go or no, based on seasons. If there is blocking in the right place, it will be cold in July. Nothing more or less. People have ( likely ) made conjecture like this in the past, but honestly ...we have to take it case by case. There may be more blocking in winter then summer. Okay, but if the blocking is over eastern Canada... not sure summer protects us from cooler anomalies.

I haven't seen an actual spring cut off like we used to do in the mid 2000s probably since then. The last time was a cut-off on 'roids: May 2005. It wasn't "a" cut-off. It was an initial variant, that kept getting a new N stream parcel loading into the backside. The first in the series weakened and acted like it was going to beta-drift away, but then the reload grabbed it and it retrograded. This recurred a couple more times. So it was kind of like 4 consecutive ones with lull pauses between them. Staying cold. No sun. Each one was more loaded with "o'reah" than Montezuma's Revenge. Actually ... from a purely Meteorological dorkatudal-doo it was a pretty spectacular. There was IP and mangled aggregates mixed at times up in the Worcester Hills. There were three or four different accelerations of the NEesterly wind field during each re-invigoration of the coastal storm that would rotate back when said parcels reloaded. Winds gusted 45 mph. Sheets of 38 to 44F rain... The whole thing took like 2.5 to 3 weeks to finally kick out. Lesser, singular events with a cut-off in April were more common in the 1980s and '90s. Seems we've had a dearth of those in last decade?

You are logically flawed everywhere ...and then asking others to 'get real' with respect and regard to your reasoning. got it Firstly, there is no data manipulation. That is a petty interpretive bs thing you do where you think people have some ulterior motive or agenda. Wrong in this case... I set that to be 1951 to 2020. That is all I did. It is not used for any other purpose, as that post clearly has no other purpose, than to expand the to denser sample size. That's just good science. Secondly, there is no logical reason or necessity to combine ocean, when the atmosphere is hugely modulated by the ocean. If you wanna get into a sciency discussion about the ocean modulation physics, that's certainly a valid and worthwhile engagement. It does nothing to invalidate the state of the atmosphere. The product exists for reason. Thirdly, using words like "random" further exposes you rwill to criticize before consideration and higher reasoning. Fourthly, I wrote 2 fuckin' paragraphs with explanation in that missive... This is plebeian argument at this point... I'm out

Aside from the fact, the critique is misplaced. We in the Met and Climate community, who are not assholes and/or just fucking morons, already are aware that the oceans have absorbed 90+% of the warming that began actually since the Industrial Revolution. The oceans are intrinsic as a heat sink and modulator. Therefore, representing these warming(cooling ) graphics, respectively, already has that consideration embedded geo-physically.