All Activity

You know Wiz…if a branch falls on a house, and there wasn’t a warning…god forbid.

Yeah, I noticed this too. That's Ural blocking. That block is actually a good feature to see show up if the hope is for a weakened PV this winter. Will be quite interesting to see if it keeps showing up. Especially throughout November. In fact, case in point, the weeklies today showing a little something and it's likely related to that same block currently modeled. Ural Blocking as a Driver of Early-Winter Stratospheric Warmings https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL082097 "This study explores the early-winter atmospheric response to Ural blocking anomalies in November, using a nudging technique to constrain the temperature and dynamics in a high-top atmospheric model. Persistent Ural blocking anomalies in November are associated with a warm Arctic/cold Siberia pattern and increased upward planetary waves entering the stratosphere, leading to a warming of the polar vortex. This stratospheric response then propagates in the troposphere, leading to increased occurrence of the negative North Atlantic Oscillation in December and January."

that shelf is empty precip is still miles west of you and the heavyier rain is starting to shrink in size will it make it too the city ?

That cell to your west is booking at 43 mph

I'll let you know how it is

Thanks for narrowing it down. And which model was that and which month's forecast?

I don’t understand the 60 mile wide warnings in these. All of this stuff besides the Litchfield stuff looks terrible. Even that may not be what it looks

Wicked looking shelf cloud approaching Englewood, nj.

Very weak sauce. To be expected with limited instability and weak lapse rates

Southern Dutchess looks like they just got whacked pretty good. Had a severe warning here but it all missed North.

We try to convey this to the younger whippersnappers…but it’s hard when they didn’t live through the dry spells. And they always feel that something has changed to cause it. But it’s nothing like that..,it’s just the normal oscillation of what SNE goes through. But alas…

Drove to hubbardston looked at the radar and drove home... LFG!!

Ironically all the left over warnings are north not south. Counter to what you would think based on where the most sun was today. .

Received 1.46" last night through earlier today. Around 1 pm snow began mixing in and briefly changing over to all snow during heavier bursts. Has quickly ended and skies are clearing... 2.23 inches of rain the past 5 days!

The entire CONUS should be warmer than all the guidance with the warmest anomalies along the Northern Tier states right to the East Coast.

Yeah probably just a sprinkle here.but maybe some decent gusts

I can't lose. If it's warmer, my nice, dirty carbon rich oil bill won't be so bad this year. If it's not, it'll snow. Of course, you didn't mention exactly where it's going to be warmer than seasonal modeling, nor did you mention which seasonal model. But even a stellar seasonal model forecast will be too cool in spots and too warm, so you really can't lose with that "forecast."

I ultimately deemed 1997 worthy of inclusion in the final QBO composite, but agree it's not one of the stronger ones.

The southern part of the storm in pennsylvania is still lagging behind in the better environment. Convective maintenance will be a struggle not too long after crossing the river. Not only will storms have to deal with inhibition, it's also going have to deal with a setting sun.

That's what I thought for @CoastalWx when he got his long awaited 6" in Jan -- VIOLENTLY BEAUTIFUL he said. But the NIN "downward spiral" continues I guess despite a solid 25-26 winter.

Agreed, we saw that after 23. The question is, is the leap even larger this time. .

as expected the line of storms is breaking up as it moves through NJ - poor timing if skies cleared a few hours earlier and temps warmed past 80 there would have been more support further east and the earlier sun sets don't help either

Why would a negative feedback be required to stop warming? Warming is by definition not a state of equilibrium. Cessation of warming would only require removal of positive influence, not the introduction of a negative influence. Specifically - at some point we're going to run out fossil fuels to burn (albeit slowly). Unless I miss my guess - that will result in CO2 growth in the atmosphere slowing to a halt, and then probably reversing some as it gets re-absorbed by existing plant life. (That offset is already taking place to some extent vis a vis the greening that's being seen; though the effects are small right now). That aside - surely you understand that there are all kinds of as-yet-unmodeled effects that can happen, right? Despite the growth of AI - we are not yet omniscient. (Of note: Your question isn't actually relevant to the question at hand, since we're talking about world death, and even the most extreme models e.g. RCP 8.5 don't call for that. I don't believe *any* models call for that.)

AGREE.