Typhoon Tip

Nah. I was just using his post for making general point about my position on the snow. Probably my fault that he interpreted that as directed at his other stuff

I don't know… It strikes me a bit like people just not wanting a record to be broken I'm sorry it does. Otherwise the IMS plots I supplied would've been part of the discussion all along and looks a bias when potentially valid data is elided. Maybe it's not that way OK…

Granted ... I really didn't start paying that close attention to the tropics until I was mid way through me teenage years ... and also, checked out a bit during my early 20s, but of all other years remaining, I don't recall mid August with such a dearth in activity. That's just fantastically pathetic out there... wow. That 20/20 invest over the outer banks? Joke ... .that's merely desperation gasps by an office going mad in corporeal boredom - Sorry ... this isn't Saharan air/dust doing all that suppression. no f'n way man. I realize folks like and need things to make sense, and want neat, tidy explanation and all, but there's more to this suppression than that one factor. For those of you "super responsible intellects" among us that wantonly root on dystopian carnage ... you should be happy about this... Oh you miss out on the immediate gratification of dead beloved pets bobbing in the flotsem of harbor aftermath ... sure.. But, the upshot? Think how unprepared the dumb down complacent civility will be next year!

oh heh...yeah, didn't look that closely at it - unworthy...

It's funny how selectively filtered peoples perceptions are ... There's two warm waves at 850 per one cool wave... and it's 'we fall' -hahaha... Not digging on you but that's classic -

this may be the first ever in history, "butt thread"

We keep saying this ...than it's not - where are y'all getting your data... I've been utilizing NOAA's IMS ...and admittedly, it has not updated since the 11th ...but there curve was substantially more loss than 2012 as of the 11th ... it'll be interesting to see if that tend trajectory could have down such a drastic 45 deg angular change so abruptly and gone back across the 2012 slope - which is what would need to have taken place according to their products in order for the current 2019 to be less disastrous - Anyway, may be a moot point - the AO is trying to rise in the GEFs ensemble. I don't get to see the Euro EOFs but... should it rise, that may alleviate the ice loss rates - slow it down ...and in fact, if that's true they may be one in the same already... I want to stress though, that there's nothing gained in the longer run by 2019 failing to surpass 2012 - it means nothing.... The longer termed issue with the polar ice cap remains dire... I'm hoping there isn't some coveted like idea that we are coming out of the arctic crisis? ... just sayn'

hmm Not sure... Some 91s around but mostly 88's ... Boston was breeze-banged all day at 80... But Nashua/BED/HFD .... Manchester NH in the running too .. heat wave day 1 "might" have begun ... Norwood was 93 ..bit of an outlier?

yeah... uh.. just for the record - I'm not on either side of that snow debate ...really. My concerns is the large scale - Globular - circulation changes that are presently being researched as caused by climate change, and the fact that the evidences are massive ... and confidence is high within the greater reputed ambit of NOAA, NCEP and countless other institutional informatica circuitry, that shows those changes are for real, and causally linked to the former. That. needs. to. be. incorporated. into. seasonal. forecasts. Because... said efforts cannot be based upon the previous statistical packages if the governing circulation that created those statistics in history have changed - that's just logic. Not sure how to get around that and to be stubbornly reliant on methods being left behind by the evolution and the forces of change over time, is tantamount to inane. I'm sensing I'm being accidentally railroaded into the snow increase, climate vs noise thing... - I won't serve as a lightning rod. I don't give a shit about snow. The circulation is changed because the subtropical Hadley cell is expanding with a warming world, and it is encroaching on the Ferrel cell region of the mid latitude ( roughly 35 to 60 N) ...and that is expressing as a gradient rich environment. Gradient directly enforcing faster balance wind field... and that definitely by numerical/physical proxy effects wave mechanics embedded within. Not debatable... I've heard that snow increase bandied about, and anecdotally/existentially... I will add ... I've personally witnessed the increasing snow stuff since 2000... But that's as far as I'll go into that stuff. In other words, these may be mutually exclusive... Bigger seasons due to aggregate totals... storm behavior this that or the other thing... More actually falling because there is more WV... I dunno -

12z Euro... wow. You can just tell that it's itching to skip the next 45 days and make it October 1st... This is gonna be a fantastic winter for phantom day 8ers ....

Little different down here... 87/73 as the average home stations within 5 clicks - I believe it by sensible appeal... It's HI hot ...but not temperature hot I suppose.

I didn't exactly say you were - the impetus wasn't accusatory there... just not to engage in that which semantics strains the goal of consensus ( to put in mildly) in the first place - think preemptive/sarcasm for fun. Like I said... this is conjecture on both sides - ...but that means subjectivity. So taken fwiw - Unless we provide every snow event since 1990 and somehow qualitatively assess 'how much of those' were from either event profile - which ...there can be cross over -... I mean holy heck. We're arguing through our hats. But such is the nature of the beast in speculation vs real math and science in anonymity of social media - ... All I know and am confident of, is that over the last two decades...storm trajectories have been speeding up...and, balanced geostrophic wind velocities have also concomitantly risen ...most likely due to the compressive effects of the swelling tropical/subtropical Hadley cell into the Ferrel cell of the mid latitudes...that key region where our storms evolve, which exists between the subtropical latitudes and 60 N. Endemic to this era has been modeling performances ... tending to over assess cyclogen in mid ranges...only to have to mitigate development - note, mitigation is not black and white stoppage. I mean that in partial sense... It's gradation -

Eloquently summarized ! .... And to that I only segue .. As my friends in the Professorial circuitry of Boston agreed with me, ...as recently as the last Superbowl party come to think of it..., it follows logically that this is more so a sociological problem than a geophysical one. Change the attitudes ... the 'how' and 'why' word - Smith to preemptively out-leverage rationalization tactics in contrarian points of views, all that strategic time biding ... concomitantly goes away. People stop buying plastic...or, invest in technologies that advance bio-degradable forms; stop engaging in frivolous automobile/internal combustion purchases/operations; investing in renewable energy generation technologies... The entire Human contribution in the "A" part of the AGW ... while perhaps not negligible... could reduce back to mass that can be absorbed by background geophysical/biologic process. Then, hey - if we're f'ed... at least we didn't f our selves... But this ...this profligate usage of this world by a species of many billions ...? Dead meat. It is simply going to kill us. See...that is a glaring logical flaw in any contrarian point of view to this AGW versus GW - not that you or anyone asked or don't suspect this already... But, if there is any question as to the injurious engagement in a system, if one cares about the system... they don't keep engaging while they figure that out. That's baser logical precept - incontrovertible - is no differently applied to the nature of Human presence in the Global environment... Shockingly simple... Yet, complexly evaded in the eliding denier mind - and it's particularly bad because there are a lot of captains of industry and ... societal "string puller" types - paranoia notwithstanding - who are denying. They really appear to be "conditional sociopathic" When they know ( or should...) that they have the power to affect inertial changes in the system, ones that will assist in bringing about fundamental change, yet don't for immediate profit concerns.. that unconscionable. There's a spectrum of psychologies that bias people... but I think it is a form of sociopathic refrain to sit by and and stew in inaction for embracing profit now... because it is too self-satisfying than the finality of future generations... These are intelligent people - they are capable of understanding all these geophysical concepts ( one does not have to slog through the equations to get it!); no, they have the power yet, turn away. Look ... we have psychos in charge.. We create a system of economic value dependency,...then, people of a certain mindset/ilk are uniquely tended to own the ballast of said wealth... and, have no interest in these broader ramifications ... Too big to fail? ha ha ha ha This will only change on said island; only there is where and when money no longer has any meaningful collective illusory value. Sorry for the digression - Anyway, I HUGELY agree... that the engagement in this social-media is more than a mere time-waste in verbal grab-assery.. Yeah, we put up with trollic nimrods from time to time... But you know? If I were on a secretive sort of Government think-tank/panel of those who are tasked with Global threat assessing..., I most certainly would want/need barometer into the heart of the proletariat zeitgeist - where the attitudes of this era and how the general population mass views/accepts/understands this crisis (or not) is being registered. etc...etc... So, when I said "...cannot penetrate their minds," ha, I certainly didn't mean not to try - sardonic overtones.

Not sure how we can make this distinction - albeit ...we are just being conjectural here But, this is a "poly-contextual" question. Firstly, what is meant by "impeded"? Also, what is meant by "large scale winter storms" for that matter - this latter characterization may be prone to subjectivity ..which I really ..nothing sends me to irate distraction like someone hiding in semantics so let's not go there. ahaha. Seriously, we get winter "events". Frequency of lesser impacting events is favored in higher gradient. But that has more to do with storm "organization"/structural mitigation to screaming balanced flow being a negative interference in the physical interplay between larger to smaller scale wave-mechanics. Simple words ... more storms, nickle and dimers... with less ability to generate slow moving bombs. Winters that tended to steady diets of 4 to 8" events actually own the top total years - Will? I dunno ...it's more a question for him.. But I'm pretty sure that our bigger snow years come from buck shot numbers...that than through a biggie to bring it over the top... Yeah, relative to all data sets there are outliers... but honest interpretation - Another way this textured layering confuses this when trying to reconstruct how GW is effecting large scale circulation -- > storm genesis/snow and so forth... Just because a storm is sheared ...doesn't mean it won't dump snow prolifically? Also, although shearing patterns may offer challenges to deeper Norwegian Model low idealized results.., there's likely to be snow falling from other large scale mechanical forcing. Broad overrunning/isentropic slope events for example, which in fact, we happen to know are favored in gradient rich circulation mediums. In other words, there's a few ways to get snow and/or in-the-bucket water content elevated.

Definitely agreed here ... Some free thinking over morning joe - That's why I was emphasizing melted equivalency? Water content in the snow is - I think - a more meaningful metric. Considering mass: the mechanical force, regardless of any circumstance of larger-scaled variability ( and part of that variability being the 'elephant GW in the room' ) would need to be greater for more water transport ... because inertia and gravity are fundamental laws of physics that cannot, disputed, hidden or altered by fluff factor ... By considering the weight of water in bucket, over larger regional scope and scale and temporal considerations... that should be more telling when something "big" might be changing vs not changing the system. In a dark humor sense ... that's how nature works; we'll get 120" snow seasons at 22:1 more repeatedly...then, 40" snow seasons at 6:1 ...more repeatedly ( the latter of which can only happen in a warmer, WV rich transporting atmosphere) and because the latter is less physically consequential/inconveniencing ..this quite proficiently hides global warming's pernicious outcome... because Gaia's fighting back by attacking the world using her GWeapon of mass destruction - it reminds me of turning an oven up to "Clean" - only the temperature is misdirection-of-empirical-results in this metaphor. Anyway... so, if we're ( say ) doubling water equivalences over successive seasons ... the equally important question becomes, at what point does a sample set become more substantive in this business? that's a harder question ... 10 years. 20...40...160 ? I figure Millennial changes are safe. We all know that atmospheric shenanigans behaves like faux fractals ... which is to say, not really 'true ' chaos governed. But, there can be periods of time when results do repeat ... then, some form of unknown but real underlying paradigm shift take place - said pattern factors --> results falls apart ... and a new set of results seems to be a better indicator... Until that breaks down.. We see a quasi semblance of this sort of faux patterning in atmospheric variability. My belief is there are certain regions of the planet where this is more likely to occur - here being one of them. Just based upon geographical/geological antecedent "fixed" circumstances ...those regions tend to always own the variability a bit more. The region roughly bounded by the Great Lakes to New England ... upper Mid Atlantic, to SE Canada and the lower Maritime regions is one such region. This is the convergence point of two main jet structures, and arguably a third: Subtropical; Polar; Arctic (but really just the former two). Upstream forcing from disparate integrals vary these ... then, they tussle against one another for proxy ...here. More so than say ...the West Coast of North America ...where the Ferrel Cell tends to expand and covers their region from "as much" ( albeit intensely consequential when their pattern does flip around...). Anywhere on the planet where these "unmanned fire-hose" flop regions exist.. tend to own the lion's share of variability. This is critical in my estimation.. .because these 'fractal ' modes of internal variability ... at times even spanning a decade or two ... they can and do mask systematic changes due to climate change. I suspect the PNAP base-line N/A pattern ... which features a low amplitude western hump in the isohypses...and a flat open ended trough exiting the eastern limb of the continent - that base-line "canvas" ( if you will..), that alone might tamp down the synergy feed-backs of GW on temperatures ... which by common reasoning ... then might factor into precipitation profiles. Now .. some astute reader that's successfully gotten this far might go ...wo wo wo, hold on Tex' - we've been above normal... Yeeeah... but not "AS" above normal.. It's not petty to make that distinction. This is empirically shown that our positive departures are muted relative to other regions of the Globe - where by virtue of their geo - circumstantial ...may synergistically favor them like a Patriots football team. People need to understand that gestalt is true; it is by definition ...non-quantifiable, yet is a very real skewer in this GW stuff ... It is used as leverage by amoral arguments/deniers/ and/or cherry-pickers with other types of agenda in general... But I digress...