vortex95

Usually, BDFs are not good tstms producer, at least for eastern sections. Once they get to the CT Valley, things do much better.

Arnab looks quite good as it approaches land. I bet it is 125-130 kt given it pinhole eye and small size (115 kt at 06z). One things that has bugged me w/ JTWC wind fcst once a system is inland. Look at the 28/06z fcst position on the graphic attached. It is a good 30 nm inland by that point, and still 100 kt sustained? That is unrealistic given how coefficient of friction over land is much higher over than water, so winds drop very quickly. And the TC will be quickly weakening at the same time. And still 65 kt sustained 12 hr later farther inland? No way. Now, for this two fcst positions, 100 kt and 65 kt *gusts* at these times are reasonable, but that's a huge difference in sensible wx than these sustained values! Look at the HAFS-A fcst for landfall and when it is just inland. The model shows how big the effects of land friction are!

Hailstone record CT 7/4/26 @weatherwiz PT? https://x.com/ryanhanrahan/status/2110020388004462779 One thing though, it is not a complete even radius circular stone, like many giant hailstones are. Looks more a fused conglomerate rather than a mass that goes up and down in the supercooled layer getting more even layer coating each time. SCEC PDF report attached. It also noted the baseball hail event from 6/20/1995 from supercells dropping from the due N. Radar attached. Was @weatherwiz aware of this event? I bet @CoastalWx was not! The anvil canopy spread NE from this storm w/ CBMAM over BOS area. 20261013-Connecticut-Hailstone.pdf

Scrapping for the bottom of the barrel for wx content. This is what happens when the wx is quiet. They have to still have wx stories b/c wx gets the ratings, and you end up with minutia articles like this w/ loaded questions "what's driving all this bluster wx?" even if this is nothing specific or obvious or as if you can always pin down the reason, yet they ask the question anyways for tease. BOS avg wind speed so far this Oct is 10.2 mph. Normal is 9.5-10.5, so noting out of the ordinary. Peak wind gust for the month so far 42 mph. MEH in terms of sig. Sep was windier than w/ 11.1 mph (8.5-9.5), but that was due to the one big extended nor'easter Sep 22-28. One event does not make a windy season overall! That's like saying on big CONUS HU landfall means it was an active HU season. I mean really, 16 years windiest fall? Slicing and dicing that down to this level? That's another thing, you have virtually endless ways to slice and dice things down to certain periods (week, months, season, etc) along w/ any given wx parameters or phenomena and historical context, and voila, content! The thing is not all is impactful, recognizable, or significant, so why report on it? Once again, CONTENT, doesn't matter the subject or significant. And a sub-headline "BOS continues to clock is most blustery year yet". Ok, so which is it -- "windy" or "blustery"? For the fall season or for the entire year so far? Just confusing statements. And for those here, what is your definition of "blustery?" I always think of cold wx w/ wind chills. No one ever says "blustery" when it is warm out or in the summer!

In-Fa making its move to become the third STY this month. As a mentioned in a previous post, the NWPAC often makes it best moves Oct-Dec! NWPAC is now 17th all-time for ACE, but by the time In-Fa is done, it should be in in the top 10. Record NWPAC ACE for a season by far it 570.7 set in 1997 (very strong El Nino). Second place is 2004 w/ 477.5 and that was weak El Nino (modoki), but C/EPAC was well below avg, yet among the most active for the ATLC. The 1992 for third place, which is the 3rd most active for the C/EPAC. C/EPAC 4th all time is 2015 which is also 4th all time for the NWPAC (very strong El Nino year), so there is some correlation to record active in both basins and very strong El Nino, but you can see, more than one way to get a very active NWPAC season!

As @CoastalWx sometimes says, "too much Judah praising!" See screenshot attached. Not that Cohen does not know his stuff and posts good wx content, but I've seen lofted praise b/c he is local and has been featured on newscasts. One person I know who knows Cohen well keeps telling me, "he is so smart and a nice person!" Ooookay, but what does that have to do w/ fcst skill level or having valid/correct results? I see this a lot, the personal/subjective ("I know this person") interfering w/ the professional/objective. I don't care for his levity and cute quips on his social media posts. if you want to be taken seriously, don't do that, not for a general audience. A closed forum where everyone knows each other (like here) is different. Also, there is more to hemispheric patterns and winters in NAMR than the PV and Siberian snow cover, esp. when it comes to direct sensible wx in one region (i.e. New England). @CoastalWx can speak better than I on this!

TC Arnab (02B) going to town in the Bay of Bengal. 00z advisory has it 35 kt but it is a lot stronger than that now! Eye present and subsidence moat present as well, or “rapid filamentation zone.” 2006 paper attached - heavy on the advanced math but practical tidbits can be gleaned from it! When you see this immediately outside a TC core, that means business for intensity/RI! Linda in the EPAC in Sep 1997 (160 kt) had this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Linda_(1997)#/media/File:Linda_1997-09-12_1700Z.jpg atsc-jas3595.1.pdf

@CoastalWx sez "BORING!" He can't enjoy the quiet periods. We all need a break from "KRAZEE" wx sometimes.

There are minuses for sure. One can pick and chose what to focus on (negative or positive) and have a field day w/ that, but what matters is the overall net-net after all is considered. Concerning diseases/colds, they are less b/c ppl are outside more and open their windows in warm cool season wx, not confined indoors as much in closed spaces. My point is there is overall balance in the mean. The environment and life can handle it well long-term. It has for millions of years though much more radical times than recent decades. And for very mild winters? From a societal POV (lives and $$ saved/not spent), it is overwhelming positive. See here: Impacts of 1997–98 EI Niño–Generated Weather in the United States https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/80/9/1520-0477_1999_080_1819_ioenog_2_0_co_2.xml bams-1520-0477_1999_080_1819_ioenog_2_0_co_2.pdf

Right about GHG, but most AWOS sites these days do have additive climate data in the METARs for max/min. And I did not bring up UUU (Newport RI) not plotted b/c I checked and the ASOS is not currently reporting!

"were saying how mostly the project is worked on by non-meteorologist, not even programmers with meteorology experience, mostly neural network engineers." That's a big caveat, and something that I think is lost in the translation often. Example in the general pix. One can educate themselves about the wx and claim, "I've observed and experienced all sorts of wx all my life!" But that does not make one an expert on the subject by default. It would be like saying, "I've known and driven cars most of my life!" but that does not make one an expert on cars! Knowing is not enough. You need to know how to *apply* the knowledge w/ insight and wisdom only acquired by deep interest and study of a given subject. Having a formal education is key b/c if provides a lot of the basics and shows how other sciences connect well w/ meteorology, as an example. You then take that formal education, and then apply it in job in the field, gaining experience and countless tidbits over time that round out thing nicely. You also learn all the slang/jargon and the little nuances/idiosyncrasies. The fine details count! Stuff that you can often use to call out posers/hustlers/AI-generated content from the real deal! Don't get me wrong, to be a wx expert, you do not need a full 4-year degree. The Internet changes all that and if you put your mind to it and have the passion, you can get all the info ever needed from the web! Plus, forums like this you get the details and nuances that round things out nicely, as I mentioned earlier. So circling around back to the main topic at hand, when people that are not experts in a given field do work on products/services for the same field, there are caveats, as I said. Programming a model but not understanding exactly what the model does for practical application is non-trivial, and can lead to things said about the model from such programmers not in-line w/ the fcst meteorology and its limits! They can get idealistic w/o regard to practically. AI models are still bound by fcst chaos theory and in their case, the number of historical cases they drawn upon, so that becomes an issue when you get rare or outlier events. "but I'm not sure that the specifics are really well understood by the weather community anyway." Good point. I think most only understand the basics from a bird's eye view., including myself. It is a learning curve, as w/ all new tech. Unfortunately, some put the wagon in front of the horse, getting way ahead of themselves simply for content (hype) or shill purposes AI as a concept is has long been ingrained in out culture from movies like The Terminator and The Matrix, making us wary, cautions, and fearful, but that's only Hollywood! That does not mean it is reality or how things actually work!

I find this a bit misleading in the larger pix. Of course a newer model is going to be pushed and pointed out more often -- b/c it is new! Makes for better news stories. Also, beware of cherry-picking. For any given fcst, you often can find a model (AI or otherwise) that did much better than the others. Par for the course. Just is it pointed out a lot in the MSM or not? It's like the ECMWF praise that was big after Sandy. Sure, it nailed far out a mega event, but the ECMWF overall skill perception was somewhat tainted by this very fact. It did not mean that the ECMWF was the GOAT and panacea for all out fcst woes going forward! I recall ppl using the ECMWF blindly for fcst solutions b/c it was the ECMWF! That's not good fcst science. One needs to see stats for all fcsts for the model, not just one that happens to get a lot of attention and had high sensible wx impact! That does not mean GDMI is useless or should not be praised, but let's not get carried away.

That structure is likely an artifact from precip in this case. Other analyses showed Champi had completed an ERC earlier and there was no concentric eyewalls or more than one wind max.

Odds are high that there have been at least 6 other STYs stronger than Tip. This short paper from 2004 notes 2, and there have been several since (Haiyan comes to mind). stronger.pdf

The system on the Dateline is clearly a TD, if not a weak TS. I looked at a WSF-M pass and it shows good curved banding, about 4/10 on Dvorak so that a T2.5. EIR loop attached speaks for itself. And yet there is not even an invest designation yet! And CPHC gives it only 40/50. No excuse for this. I've done TC classifications for a long time and this isn't borderline or vague.