Typhoon Tip

I'm not trying to sound dickish by this ...buuuut I f'n knew this solution was coming by at least one of these guidance at 12z, re the 18-19 one of these in an endless stream of suspect wave amplitudes. I've refrained from any comment re that possibility, and the overnight quite obvious tendency to move this system NW by all model ( BTW!), because of one - possibly - sobering reason. The ensemble means at 00z and as far as I could tell... 06z, have almost no reflection of that taking place. Then ...I did internally wondered if that might not matter? Here's the reason why? Short version: the higher resolution operational versions may score better in higher sensitive regimes - which is this is a whopper predicament we are in throughout the next 10 or so days. Longer version: This is a compressed +PNA flow, which means we are inherently in a 'needle thread' scenario. Whenever you see a progressive system ( i.e., not slowing down, getting captured... stalling, obvious low level blocking like higher +PP N of Maine...et), that because a scenario where deterministic forecasting is very sensitive to very minute adjustment in track. The all or nothing become more qualitatively possible. That said, the higher resolution, more "soup up" operational members of these ens systems might also be more likely to "see" those minute crucial physics prior to the ensemble means - being that they are comprised for ( usually ) coarser grids and have physics that are experimental and may mask things...

Ha, true OH yeah ... we can peel this onion of presumptive fallacy of entitlements down many layers.

Perhaps one day ... there will be a weather modification grid invented when Quantum particle/wave physics gets so advanced they realize, okay ... we cannot predict the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle and the spontaneous emergence of forces in the natural "organic" cause-and-effect reality out in time, BUT... we can compensate by imposing our own. I.e., controlling the day 10 chart as opposed to hitting a probabilistic limiations at 73.4% ( ( I'm taking sci fi licence at the moment ...) Frankly, what a dystopian future that would be. Not having the magic of uncertainty - it's just magic and be light or dark.

Yup.. and I'm also not really too focused on where it reaches max amplitude. What going to transpire ...literally, right next door in the Meteorological context, is sufficient for a significant snowfall. - but to your implicit point, we got screwed. Nonetheless, there is/was value in having recognized this period, absolutely.

Huh .. you know, I'm finding I have to remind myself that it is mid January, so 48/32 is pretty damn hot relative to climo. Definitely some recency bias on my part because we've had a lot of these 40s days in January's in these years, and I'm not appreciating the 45+ers as much as I perhaps should be.

I just wanna point something out before we move on from the 15/16th in the spirit of philosophy, objectivity and fairness. These storm dates did not fail. What failed was our "regional backyard" ? I get the importance of actually getting it into our backyard - but that is unfortunately a myopic and frankly dim intelligence about the reality we are a part. This is the NAM's 24 hours - I'm just using it to make the point. There is a storm resulting from anticipating amplitude from over a week ago. Meteorologically, this is acceptable, particularly considering that this period was sussed out .. perhaps even 10 days prior. Again, it just ended up in southern Ontario and lower Quebec

It's an interesting psycho-babble thing ... it is. I mean, it's like that comedy bit by Louis C.K. where he outlines a flight and a passenger, never having been exposed to this technology whereby he can access his iphone while in flight, throws shade and criticizes the airline and attendants because 10 minutes into usage a couple internet pages 404 errored. "This sucks! This is an outrage! This is total bullshit.." 10 min ago, this passenger had zero awareness they could access the internet, from their iphone, while sitting in a chair, at 30 thousand feet, moving 500 mph ... Louis goes on to muse. Absolutely fucking hilarious as he exposes these entitled oblivion perspectives put on by this scowl-faced entitled person in square-mouthed rage... But something similar happens with this technology in modeling. For some reason, folks tend to less respectful, acting in a kind of indignant entitlement to the advantages and then criticizing it all without a realistic perspective. Technology and eases that it provides ... it tends to cancel humility. Personally ... the models are hugely improved ( actually ) compared to 20 years ago. However, there are CC related changes - also - that I suspect are relatively new in the history of the modeling tech, and there's some discovery there/user experience-related. We always used to know/have a feel for how things would outcome, based upon history of performance ... Those histories are less reliable, because the patterns are behaving differently - even if subtle and idiosyncratically, this appears to have a disproportionately larger impact on user experience, because those expected behaviors are not qualifying as well. This gives a faux impression of models sucking... heh. It's really more that the models are improving, and are being particularly challenged at the same time. But the users are suffering some 'chair at 30 k feet/500 mph' oblivion, too

altho, funny ... I just got done with a lecture point about theta-e deficits and this panel way out there turns around and demos a magnificent source... LOL

Unlikely, unfortunately

You should check this one just academically because it's what we were talking about earlier in getting the vort more S - immediately you see that improve. There's definitely an odd moisture deficit going on... It's almost like we're getting a negative feed-back over the continent because of the lack of cyclone traffic. These potent but compressed waves are failing to generate inflow pooling of theta-e into the S, whereby subsequent wave traffic have that source available to them. Something like this ... that ICON solution should be exploding frankly - it may also be that it's at the time horizon of the models outer edge too...

15/16th is still there... in fact, it's actually the most amp of all this shit... the problem, not for us. upstate NY to western QUE gets a moderate snow with strong windy system as a low forms over SE NY and a goes down to 990 or so as it cuts west of us. Meteorologically, that's a success Winter weather dorks like us end up with sort butts. Obviously this factor here does not lend to recognition extended to the Meteorologists.

Bingo... absolutely. That's all three, GGEM, GFS and now Euro... well, they've been doing this for days actually; it's been a matter of how much or how little. If you look at that run fro 00 to 200+ hours, it is doing that I think 4 times with a wave capable of dystopian cryo hell ... getting it's nuts cut off by the blade slicing in too close on it's heals. That is why the 20th probably goes like the 18 ...and the 22nd or whatever ...etc I mean we'll see if this changes. But that 20th look there proooobably doesn't get more amped and do the NJ thing... as the forcing's leaning against because of all this

Oh I know - sorry... that sounded like I was yelling at you, huh. haha I swear I was just using that as a diatribe catapult.

I'd like to get that vort tube's trajectory off the NJ coast as opposed to LI ... If so that would be a NJ bomb model low... Like 1987 November, but a cold profile.

yeah, I'm not sure temperature's a very good proxy for driving any conclusions. Particularly, if we just step back and look a this ... I'd really suggest we are idiosyncratically warm relative to the pattern. It should be colder than has been, in simple terms. Could be caused by changing circulations and ambient thermal states of the planet ... both of which are concomitant with CC (LOL). - something is altering these states of the planet, and it is a planetary scope and scaled observation ... so that screams for a common denominator. CC being a homogeneous state is a common denominator so if the shoe fits - sorry. You know, as an aside, I think a lot of the problems people have with CC isn't the Climate part. It's that everyone and the current zeitgeist is wrongly blaming everything on climate. Change is culprit. I'd argue it is a change that doesn't appeal enough to the physical senses, nor trigger inconvenience enough but different discussion. Change is just a measure of status from before, versus now. When comparing status from 1990, to status today, utilizing the exact same method for both, a change in status is academically proven: cooler then, warmer now. Now, if people had a fucking clue how that change can and does mechanically effect circulation modes, which are ...duh duh dunnn, thus moving around a warmer atmosphere ... there probably would be a lot less of this ridiculous debate This lunacy in reticence.