Jump to content

Typhoon Tip

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Typhoon Tip

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

25,076 profile views
  1. Interesting little short term battle between the this new 18z GFS vs everything else for SNE for tomorrow. GFS is gray but dry...probably a little milder by virtue of being so. Perhaps a little drizzle on the immediate shore points. Maybe some breaks in ceiling out CT and western MA. everything else squares the day into the dumpster with steady light rain shut in weather.
  2. It's become a phenotype of Mays to have BTV smoke NYC and BOS' batting average for warmth lol Although next weeks looks like a I-95 corridor warm special from D.C. to PWM Wed/Thur -
  3. It may not rain 'up here' though, ... much. I mean drizzle passing here and there but primarily dry. There's no real means to provide lift, and most likely where the models have the stationary very light QPF blob parked over eastern zones that's just the land/sea convergence over sensitive in the runs. It may also start to sag south during the afternoon. Sort of like what happened yesterday. It'll be a cooler air mass everywhere though. It's a matter of how much.
  4. Yeah unfortunately ...tomorrow probably is 15 below today ( tick or two ). It's probably a day where Danbury CT is bathing in a utopia while Beverley MA is having second thoughts of ever having placed a town charter in that location.
  5. All seriousness ... ( and tedium ), it's a nice out there today. 70 here. I'm noticing that the CU trajectory and the llw wind is actually more NE were I am here in N . Middlesex in east central Mass. That's technically not a marine flow here. With sat presentation showing only micro fluffies getting in the way of the sun, we're probably going to be just fine this mid day. Maybe the s-breeze mechanics overwhelm late in the day. I also noticed the 12z NAM is a little better for Sunday. It's probably going to be cooler coast, warmer deep interior type thing. Could see that being 63 here and 53 at Logan. ...75 in ALB. With sun around. That's a better scenario than prior run.
  6. It's almost like the GFS' physics cause these analogous 'Jovian' like fixed spots. Vortex modes, and the rest of the atmosphere just starts moving around them. We happen to be stuck with one SE of L.I. ... Not saying its even wrong, necessarily. There's currently a festering llv gunk low there this morning, helping to send <700mb slab back west into the region. It seems to be all but entirely uncoupled to the mid and upper air synoptics. Something about the llv mass field circulation medium is forcing that interesting
  7. That's a bit different circumstance, though. The Euro I was using to commiserate was D8.5 This above is typical of the GFS at that range. ... just humoring a 372 hour chart for a moment... It seems like a transfixed result of the model, where out around further ranges it (perhaps) loses all other driving forcing ... allowing the underlying Labrodorian cold climate sink as an actual atmospheric footprint. I mean really, just imagine for a moment we remove the land from the map, that's indistinguishable from a the Labrador current's cold SST termination waters. Which by the way, that depiction is colder than the current, too. It would have a cold offset regardless of its own rancid low. ( That latter fact sometimes makes me wonder if it is exposing some of the modeling strategy at NCEP where they may in fact be initializing grids based on climate. The Lab current has been notably getting warmer in the last 10 years in particular ...etc. ) Not just with that aspect. I've noticed the GFS is the wrong model - always - to ever detect heat at extended leads. It's like they templated the model to hide CC LOL ( little sarcasm there..)
  8. Nothing like a deep coastal nor'easter while the rest of the planet undoubtedly puts up another hottest month ever -
  9. Frankly it looks like all models were festering that low level grunge low E of NJ, while S of modest +PP layout over NS - hold just enough differential static for 2 days it sends pulses of low level Labradorian ass vomit all weekend long. I'm like ... really - They weren't ever ideal for the weekend in prior runs, but they're coalescing around that idea now doesn't seem like physics. LOL. And this is infuriating looking ... because it's hard to find any kind of mid and upper support for that "anchor" low. And it's not even deep. It's like 1009 mb ... barely lower than standard sea-level, yet it keeps us in the 50s ... I gotta say though, we were supposed to be locked in the 50s in the 2-meter progs from the Euro, yesterday, yet we had a gorgeous sunny mid to late afternoon into early evening and temps recovered to 70 for a high. It's probably grasping for hope to say so but it could be a prelude to these models over doing it. It's really sensitive around here.... the ocean being 44 F while the 850s over land support 72 makes for some whiplash error potential. All depends which 10 minutes of W or E wind is in place.
  10. I'm getting an estimate at the end of the month. It's not just about the installation. That too, but mostly it's about a fraction of the per annum energy cost to heat and cool the edifice of the home. Plus the sound controls. Jesus. Install A.C.s that don't sound like an emissions control test at an aeronautical proving ground cost a lot, plus are less efficient to even run. In the winter, my house has electric base board heaters. redic
  11. Sky's lightened some here... looks like dim sun is cleaving through the easterly anomaly across southern NH just to my N. Probably that opens up as the initiation of this thing breaking down. It'll take the day down near the Pike and S.. but maybe some improvements along Rt 2 and N during the afternoon
  12. Oh no way. I grew up meteorologically in the 1990s, when the models were amazing compared to the 1980s... By present era standards? the 1990s are neolithic. We were taught in advancing dynamics ....back when the dinosaurs roamed ... that there is a 'predictive horizon' to this modeling tech. It's basically just where the statistical results fall below significance to the purpose. It was, at the time... still beyond the technology of the 1990s, which really couldn't see very well enough to matter beyond 5 or 6 days ( although there were rare times when extraordinary events would show up at D10 and stick ). By today's standards, that horizon has been pushed out D8 or 9 ('m not sure what these horizon values are in use-case; I'm just using these numbers as examples). These D8 .. 9 are somewhat more reliability when combining huge advancements of computing speeds, increased input data density, with other key metrics - to mention also experience. You can increase the odds of success in that range by some 20 or 30% - where in 1995 D7 had 5% ... now has a 25% ..etc There is however a kind of 'absolute predictive horizon,' a temporal boundary whence the inevitable collection of random permutations aggregates too much reciprocating influence, and the system's coherency gets irrecoverably effected. It's an unintended consequence of all complex systems in nature - systems are ultimately not allowed by nature to remain in stasis. There is always drift - just a matter of how much so, and when... I mean, where do we think cancer comes from ? You know, it's an arresting momentum to be informed by ones doctor, 'Did you know that all human males WILL end up with prostate cancer, period. It's just a matter of whether they out live the inevitability.' This is really true for all cancers - more generic to say ... true for all complex systems to flounder. In the context of cancer, genetic mutation from billions of RNA sequencing and re-combinatory mechanics. It's a matter of time. Chaos as a product of time and opportunity cannot be avoided. In weather modeling, it's two process of spontaneous emergence: the models have to deal with their own, yet the atmosphere they model is also emergent. Those emergence' are mutually exclusive. That widens the gap further. Ultimately it doesn't matter how dense the input grid and the speed that is available in order to crunch all that data - emergence of randomness in time is a factor that will always corrupt an outlook. We're probably still not quite there even in 2024. But we are more than a hair better than we were in 1994. We ultimately can't sample every quantum state of every quantum point, simultaneously, with exacting precision - that is intrinsically impossible, as Heisenberg ..et al showed us both mathematically, and empirically that is demonstrated to be the case. You know, the more precise the measurement, you start gaining uncertainty - it's not altogether very intuitive for most. But really, all of nature and reality itself is a result of probabilities. Imagine where we'll be when AI ( and there's a new coining expression called Super AI - think next gen(s) ) is sistered to practicum quantum computing cores? I think the absolute horizon is "probably" found there.
  13. It kinda 'suggests' that the GFS, with its apparent hypersensitivity in creating/emerging all these gnats and rogue perforations that undermine ridging ... yeah, it's probably too sensitive, but the physics 'sensing' this sort of oddities - this is one of those perforations. It's not completely useless in that sense.
  • Create New...