Typhoon Tip

Marginal ... At 24 hours, prior to the amplitude setting up over the MA, the heights over the Florida Panhandle are 582 N, to 584-ish S, which is on the fence ... arguable a very minor stressing of that hypothetical rule. However, the other part of that, which is actually the more important aspect, the wind flags are < 40 kts on average. That means that the flow is not preconditioned to a compressed state. Such that as the S/W/phase going on over top in latitude, doesn't have the southern momentum being absorbed in the baseline velocity anomaly. Words get a bit pricey in that... but it has to do with whether a wind max is actually differentiable in the U component of the flow. For example, if the ambient velocity of the flow (U component) is humming along at 70 kts, and a powerful S/W with a 110 kts wind max up in Manitoba has it's sights set on the TV ... as it descends the stream lines, it's 110 -70 = 40 kts of differential. Not terrible. But, if the ambient flow is only 30 kts, that becomes a much bigger velocity left over to force jet responses. The sign that the former "robbing"/absorption is taking place, the vorticity begin to slope backward and the trough's axis into the southern flanks look bends back positive. Long than I wanted... In this case, the marginal limitation is easily overcome. Arithmetically, this whole amplitude has vast momentum compared to a 584 dm hgts, with limited or 0 geostrophic wind anomaly.

Bun me if you must ... but this is a little frustrating seeing these runs get cute with their position fixes in that 48 to 70 hour window overnight. This look above, is theoretically more supported than any other guidance I've seen, including the GFS, since 3 days ago frankly. It doesn't mean that the low has to come within 40 MI S of Block Island like that ... for the record. However, there's a leitmotif along this thing's modeling history has lacked commitment to where this thing should be, relative to a few different synoptic arguments, wave signature(s) and mass conservation and stuff. I've said multiple times over the years that this pursuit is a game of managing nested anomalies. We have a -PNA, which principle, is an anomaly; inside which we have a positive relative PNA burst, also an anomaly relative to the former. Inside which hosts this anomalous event, inside of which ... the idiosyncrasies of track and storm morphology dictates a pedestrian showing N-W of roughly HFD-BOS ... while limiting the ferocity SE of that line. The inner most nested anomaly has the surface preferential to a SE position within 'the cone' - so to speak. It's annoying. Be that as it may ... But - as an example - if we look at 42 hour surface featuring of the 06z Euro operational, there is low position ~ 75 to 100 MI E of the Va Capes. At that time the best quasi-geostrophic forcing is not there. It's WNW around the Ches. Bay side of the Del Marva stinger. But this is like teeing off in Golf (metaphor), where you swore you swung a great stroke but you hit the ball 1 deg off the sweet spot and that tiny error ends up being an unsavory fairway fringe lie by the time the ball gets 300 yds down stream. Just a knee jerk guess ... the models are ending up mid way between the best deep layer forcing, and what may be irresistible ...ultimately real mad mad convective instability out there.

We talked about it last night or maybe it was a night before? QPF is not nearly as important as identifying the machinery the cyclone at this range cause that’s gonna get moved around like kids with finger paint for the next 24 to 48 hours.

I looked at it. It’s not that noticeable. Put it this way it’s within a margin of air of noise and it doesn’t make any difference. It’s actually deeper so it’s splitting hairs The biggest difference is the QPF distribution, but we’ve already been over that. There’s more guidance source is still doing the northwest ticking so I don’t think it means anything yet. We need more than one cycle that and it has to be more obvious than what I’m seeing

He’s probably waiting on NWS to pull their trigger

Yeah, I don’t think the northwest trend is really done until we can verify that across two complete cycles Still plenty of time folks

The differences between the 18 Z and the 00z GFS are attributable to noise and are essentially meaningless. i’m not even sure this one counts as stopping the trend Northwest. we need to get another cycle because this looks like it’s almost an identical track. It’s too close to judge. The defining difference is that QPF distribution; it’s probably splitting hairs when the pressure is actually deeper on this solution,below 970.

It’s not done until it stops trending too As far as I can tell all the early models are coming out on average and in blend still ticking northwest

Not to throw shade, but NWS is gonna have a lot of work to do in the morning They have to do a sweeping headline revamp, almost propaganda, expressed to try and catch up with this thing. And it’s not just snow I mean, we have got a real problem with marine interests due to the lunar tide cycle coinciding with this beast. And then there’s the wind problem too. There’s gonna be borderline high wind, warning criteria gusts

Fwiw

NooOOO snow for you ONE YEAR!

Even if we get a fraction of that total snow, those winds are gonna blow that around in a blinding rage. It’s gonna be totally a freak show out there.

Guys, I’m just yanking chains It’s fine to go with that like I said, I mean, you can always update it if we need to go either direction

Lol it’s not enough.

Yeah, I don’t see any harm in doing that… There really is nothing weenie about that. It’s just too overwhelming at this point. I mean, if we’re serious, we should be aware of this can be updated in the future. We’re still 2 1/2 days away from this thing.