Typhoon Tip

It was definitely more vivid here with unaided eye than it was back in May, viewing this from the same vantage point in both incidences with the same light obstruction Light pollution is a factor folks. I’m sure you all know this but just in case.

Just had a huge plume of auburn glow right next to goblin green, much more vivid and obvious to the unaided eye than what we had last May. In fact, I was seeing it right through street lights.

that looks like Buzzard's Bay is sending a local le snow band across New Bedford.

Same here... first frozen was last week on Nov 6 with those graupel showers. today there are wind sent single flakes ... really sparse but they are there if one is nerdy enough to study the air. ha

Fwiw - the models have been attenuating the cold air mass all along, showing rising thickness en masse within the trough for days of guidance cycles. That may not be much consolation reading that. I know. This whole trough and cold snap ( primarily west of our longitude) was originally modeled by the GFS about 8 or 9 days ago to generate an impressive coastal with implications from N-PA to interior SNE. By D6 the guidance went away from that idea. The trough morphed into more of a meridian type with EC parallel flow. In fact, over these last 6 days there's been very good model performance overall for poorly consolidated low turning up through PA into eastern Ontario. Can't say the Euro or the GGEM were much different - they seemed to get on that same page a while ago, too. From my perspective, the models are having trouble with the idiosyncratic -NAO ... gee what's new. But back some 2.5 weeks ago the long range numerical outlooks showed a collapsing index in the NAO. That actually verified ... the index numbers are in fact negative and have been. What's fascinating is that synoptic layout is not representing that exertion ... sometimes that happens, though rarer. As it were, the cyclone still turned left prior to 90 W and ended up NY state - in other words, despite -2 SD NAO in the derivatives, the former behavior was really more nuetral NAO like. It all shows how difficult the NAO is to work with. The PNA was left to it's one devices ... and the trough amplifies too early/maximizes west. That idea of commitment to a coastal made more sense relative to the numerology back whence. This "could" have been the season's first synoptic run in. +1 SD PNA with a failing western exerted -NAO? If I were seeing that index outlook from 12 days ago I'd be just as inclined to watching the coastal storm routes for eventual operational emergence. Just the way it goes. You know, we've often reminded folks that all these teleconnectors, air, sea and combinations therein and et al, they are never 1::1. There's always exceptions. Just be glad it happened now, prior to thanks giggedy, when there's still 4 some odd month's worth of other scenarios for the atmosphere to anti-correlate new and exciting ways to tune up winter enthusiast's dignities like a chef with a steak hammer... Anyway, failed humor aside ... it helps to have some explanation. Not to be high handed or anything but ... heh, I honestly walked away from this whole synoptic era pretty early in the game, as I could see this unfolding like 5 days ago. I've seen this before when the indexes may derive positive or negative field values despite the behavior not being perfectly aligned - it's rare ... but if there is going to be a time of the year where that is more likely to anti-correlate, its at this time of year and sometimes in April

Winter 2025-2025 ....? What's the 2026 half lookin' like lol

26,000 tons of iron ore Tropospheric fold whoops

Yeah, I saw something related to that ^ last week. A paper discussing the pivot point as being weaker than previously thought.

Can't say I actually disagree here ... whether this chart above actually occurs in reality, the time frame in question is vulnerable to early season winter expression. This has been very consistent in the numerical teleconnectors, with a lowering -(AO/NAO). The AO and NAO share domain space; they are not exactly collocated. The NAO appears to be weighting the AO down when looking at the different ensembles spatial depictions of the H500 hgt anomalies, the expression of which are also setting up over the western limb ( E/NE Canada/ Baffin Island/ D. Straight ...etc) of the NAO domain. The cyclone genesis/track correlation for that type is S of of. The problems are the notoriously poor handling of the NAO in terms of spatial layout nuances and amplitude. It makes it less useful as a forecast planning tool as say the PNA, which given to it's massive size, tends to be change slower, making it more reliable ( bigger objects taking longer to change and so forth ) Lot of concepts to juggle here ...I know. The operational runs have been fiddling with the notion of above ... hinting in then abandoning, then back in with it... fits that notoriety of being an unruly index. But, so long as the signal is there in both numerical and synoptical presentation, the probability for a cold system type during that period is > than daily climatology.

Looked like a polar low was trying to generate as it rolled down eastern Lake Michigan a couple of hours ago. fascinating

Not to make light of what you feel your situation is ... or is in fact, but doesn't that ( bold ) qualify as a home?

Not sure if you're kidding or not but ... personally? I don't have a problem with him in general. He's had some really interesting guests on his program over the years, and has shown a type of journalistic curiosity in getting them to speak from their positions of expertise - open minded and genuinely inquisitive. When he's interviewed so many luminaries from such a broad spectrum of disciplines, ranging from the most esoteric physics, to the humanities and entertainment ... he's been fair. He allows them their presentation. He's just not right in his ideas with climatology. It's not a crime. One thing that he does not appear to be is abstinent when posed with logic that exposes what is objectively real - that's a key difference.

`Well there you go... if what you are saying is true ( bold ^ ...I'll leave that up to you) than it shows - this just a little logic application and critical analysis, they are dubious (and immoral by the way) without even knowing their history.

It was suspicious ... These two struck me as big oil moles - they may not be linked as such, but they plied the same sort of tactic that big oil used to attempt. Buyout intellectuals pay them to be lobbyists, sending them into public forums and/or legislative debates. et al, where raise points that are ultimately false, but brilliantly articulated, thus too difficult to adjudicate and/or be objectively critical of by the target audience - who by not fault of their own, are just not educated or experiences or capable. This is particularly effective when the audiences are bias to begin with, such as Rogen and his reach. He's a CC skeptic, based upon his general history, one that is more than likely influenced by a political base - a latter aspect that is evinced via his media portrait and expose' over recent years. So Lendzen wastes no time in smirkly nose laughing comments that discredit climate science, 'how can there be a huge consensus when there are so few climate scientists around' - or words to that affect. It's so patently absurd when you think that climate scientists are but a fraction of the voices. What about all the alarms from oceanographers and biologist and general environment/natural scientists, et al... what about all them? No one in his audience - for example - even knows to ask that. It's obvious these guys are specious. Or stupid. ... and then he goes on to make statements to the affect of, 'you should be suspicious of any consensus'