Typhoon Tip

Right on schedule here along rt 2 ...this leg of it anyway. Color schemes are also species consistent without unusuals. This is the first 'climatological foliage' behaving year in some time...

No disagreement ... it's a low probability return. sure. The tussle I meant to expand upon is that as this fledgling season is coming in, there is increasing modeled injects off the NE Pac of these -2 SD polar anomalies. They're rocketing along the interface of a vast southern geopotential positive anomaly. Whenever they do, that S/W moves from MT to NS in about a coffee break. Really fast. These -2 waves may in fact expose a suppressed -PDO type exertion - a sort of "non-linear"/invisible lingering -PDOness. heh. somethin like that... So early on, the conflict may be brewing. I hear you about 2023 but I thought of 2023 as not a real El Nino frankly. Yeah, it met the criteria of course in the traditional scope and scale. Of course. But even in a RONI reprocessing, RONI isn't perfect either... My thing is that the Earth system was still in the throws really of registering that giant spring burst in thermal recovery that took place. It superseded the ENSO onset - and was also ... ( I feel strongly ) wrongly attributed to being because of the onsetting El NINO... but it was the wrong epistemic direction. Because the former happened first! we can go around and around with that... but the point is, there were concurrent massive signals and it'll take a lot more necessary math and science in order to figure out what was really proxy on that ensuing winter. I think having a whole planet warm a half degree C (fun trivia: ~ equivalent to 250 times the yield of the world's nuclear arsenal detonated at once. If we include the jump in the ocean to that calculation, it's thousands of time greater, btw -) needs to unequivocally explained before believing the ENSO that year was proxy over something with enough energy to holocaust the planet 250 times over. I dunno, but now years on that warm burst is hypothetically, fully 'absorbed' and accounted for in the ongoing machinery of the ID CGT ( Intradecadal circum-global teleconnector)...yet, we are left with a -PDO suggestion that should not be there given this scope of ENSO. These are compelling concepts for me anyway- Or not.. could all turn out to be nothin. But in the balance... teetering one way or the other comes down to unbalanced forcing.

Jokes aside, I do suspect there's something in the -PDO mode of the atmosphere over the N arc of the Pac Basin that may parlay. Not certain on that... no It's just an 'intuitive arithmetic' of having the -PDO ... correlating -EPO, then vying over top a canonical ENSO driven STJ. The N. Pac is that "hangover" concept we were discussing back whenever that was? I don't keep apprised of the indexes weekly however. I just glance at the scalars. I see the models tussling already. I think that behavior matters - they are physically processing and so whatever their logistical biases are can mean one of two aspects: a, they are picking up on something in the atmospheric forcing spectrum; b, they are just wrong. The latter concern is ameliorated some by fact that all the models are doing this ( more what that is in a moment). They don't all have the identical physical equations built into their processing - though principally the same. So that means whatever is triggering persisting biases either way, it's likely something real in the background. Obviously this is all very experimental -

Well yeah there's that too. Joe sets coffee down in the throws of some weird bi-polar pulse of gaiety firing off that morning, and the first thing he eats are "doomer" words of absolute dog turd ... That's gonna result in the bell of round one. haha No but I was just musing along very general take on matters.

Meh,... there's a pathway to getting a surprisingly winter result ( positive snow, assuming that's the consensus). However, that's relative to a shitty background. All the shenanigans that go on here is about 99% guided by individual differences in what reality really is. LOL I suspect those that are "gloom and doom" posting, or are being perceived to be so ( sometimes I think others are also bit too touchy about their d-drip possibly being NARCAN'ed haha ), they are really just being practical. If the limitation on prospects are legit - I don't know. Tough shit. Get over it. It's a separate issue with maturity - mother nature takes the winter candy out of their hand and puts it back on the shelf as we're going through the autumn checkout line. So the kid gets snitty. Meanwhile, there are those that don't seem to really give the limitations equal billing, either. We'll just call them optimists.... To them, it's not so much attempting to be evasive... ? I don't think so. I suspect to them it's a built in assumption. However, that does get a little weighty/bias eventually, given time and crowd physics. There'll be this aroma that smells like false hope that drives posters like Forky to distraction. HAHAHA. One should really preface their missives with something like, "excluding the innate limitations ( or gains ...ether way) that we all know are apparent... like the warmest ever ENSO mapped over the warmest the Earth has been since the late Hadean epoch" (expressive). That way, it's your fault for not fucking reading the conditional statement. Humor aside, CC and warm ENSO doesn't send chills down any rational spine. What those of us that are optimistic are doing is just finding kernels snowcane-reasons lined up on the mirrors. I suspect there's something about the lingering -PDO in conflict with the +ENSO that might be one such pathway.

mm what that Wiki definition misses is the psycho-babble 'real' reason why that practice of over-bearing attention to grammatical details became a thing in the first place. Shame of personal ignorance and petty need to come across as smarter than they fear they've just been exposed... I've seen countless online exchanges between people that grew heated ... usually over remarkably low-bar intellectual nuggets if not petty avoidance of admitting one is wrong. The one that's getting most irate and taking it personally first is both usually most wrong, and, the one that starts nit picking not just grammar but semantics, too. The reason people do that, they don't even have to be in a hostile state, either. They arrive to the on-line scene with self-doubt and hiding already in mind. They've taken on that role in online relating because they actually don't bring substantive value, either in in the form of learned information, nor innovative thinking - either way. Dullard, and trying to hide it. So they're relying on something easy, and ultimately a tactically avoidant redirect.

we got the old unmanned fire hose across the continent. these guidance are flip flopping the jet and wave train because they're missing underpinning planetary wave signal. It's like all S/Ws and no L/W. without the L/W rail system, the S/W train slips off the tracks on ever model run.. heh

https://phys.org/news/2026-09-science-strategy-transparency-anthropocene.html Mm .. honestly? There's no honesty there. Naivety perhaps, if someone believes it's just procedural contention. All that stuff about procedure mishandling, or turning phrases like "...Compromised evaluation" leading to "internal ethics report investigating these violations,.." strikes me as 'obsticularity' - i.e., blocking agenda. No, there's internal strife surrounding acceptance that human activity is causing climate change - that's what this is. And someone or group therein has some reason to block the labeling when it's perfectly valid. According to a quick conversation with AI ... "What is the reticence and/or outright resistance toward codifying a geological epoch as the "Anthropocene" ?" "The resistance is not mainly to the claim that humans are transforming Earth. There is broad agreement on that. The dispute is over whether those changes satisfy the technical rules for a formal geological epoch, and whether a single boundary can represent such a complex, uneven process. In March 2024, the International Union of Geological Sciences approved the rejection of the proposed Anthropocene Epoch. The proposal would have placed its beginning around 1952, using plutonium fallout from nuclear-weapons testing in sediments at Crawford Lake, Ontario, as the “golden spike”—a precisely defined physical marker for a boundary in the geological time scale. The Anthropocene therefore remains widely used, but not as an official epoch." Yeaaa, riiight. The problem I have with all that is for having suffered long years in observing the follies and vicissitudes human kind. What this smacks pretty egregiously like is no different than lawyers getting a murderer off "on a technicality" - a fundamental flaw in the execution of Law in our free society is that procedure should somehow circumvent culpability. So, the shimmering righteousness of human morality takes over and it is then used divisively. Whenever the implications of legislation is unappealing, ... most importantly, patently true, strategy is often redrawn to attack method. But it doesn't change the facts. Admitting human activity has led to climate change is a pacification device to turn down the heat while a stall can perpetuate. The hold outs for not label it as such and why? Dubious. There's probably something like "moles" (not per se but for lack of better word) up and down the ranks of the brain trust and "Universium" that may even have to answer to society during "back door conversations". Perhaps reticence in labeling it Anthropocene has more to do elsewhere - something powerful has something to lose. Perhaps I'm being too expressively cynical. Maybe. But given what's transpired in the last 150 years ... to mention, now more than ever is an exposing world that simply cannot conceal itself any longer like it used to, does anyone above a brick's intelligence believe that anything is or really ever was adjudicated with impartiality? Alright? so at least cautionary cynicism is required going forward.

Even that may be in trouble in a couple hours. Not sure interpretation of the model -suggested clouds is correct, or if the models themselves are erroring too optimistic but I'd go under MOS with that satellite look in SNE.

does look like the 2nd step down is nearing... This one will introduce for the first time blue contours for those that need pretty colors for visual aid One thing I'm noticing is that already, the S/W translation speeds ( the wave's movement through the field, not the flow moving through and around the wave) are moving very quickly. I'd be prepared for haulin' ass wave speeds this winter - problematically. Probably effecting storm morphologies and headaches.

Hard to say… I mean the signal before was pretty significant so coming back to neutral signifies collapse so to speak, but it doesn’t necessarily mean a warmer than normal pattern. At the moment the look resembles a 36 hour cool followed by 36 hour warm transitory

Adding the obvious… When the climate is rising(falling) along a non-linear curve any fixed period of linear average thus becomes a false reference

Teleconnectors are collapsing too. Not sure what that's all about ...lest whether it's believable. But the big positive PNA may be in trouble if real.

This year is the first in the last 10 that appears to be on-schedule. We've seen odd irregularities in color presentation among species ... Timing of onset, therein. Which began about 8 years ago. Since then some trees around this area that are easy to remember, year-to-year, began displaying yellows instead of orange. Going brown instead of orange. Going red even... doing so at as early as September 20 and as late as October 15. This year however, it reminds me of the amount of 'tinging' that should be here on October 1-ish, which is the case now. Another week, you can see that we'll be flashing up pretty good. October 10 was always dependable prior to that 8 years ago; the peak for this guy was close to that date This year, judging now and extrapolating seems we'll be close to this by October 10 again

some of the model cloud/RH products might have been a bit optimistic ... Hi res vis suggests we suffer lowering sun angle and now less able to thermally induce erosion, because there's really nothing above about 1,000 feet elevation but the moon so the sun must be like skipping off the pond so to speak... there's some sky lights just beginning to open. If this were May we'd be full sun. the sounding would shoot us to 82 already but this late in the year and time today getting eaten by cool saturation at 900 feet should limit us under potential - a seasonal feedback mechanism.

First wide spread multi-regional frost/freeze potential 6th-7th?

the problem with orchestrating life behaviors around traditional points of views and perspectives/belief systems is when objective evidence, and math, prove that the old traditional methods are harmful - yet, they remain unwavering.

it's been in the charts for days yup. i looks shorter lived, however. Pretty significant +PNA/+PNAP circulation mode sets up according to tele's and ext ens. We'll see

major step in death just occurred this hour mid and upper level cloud elements are moving E, N of the llv center...which means it's not long even vertically stack - going the other way... Rad also in process of collapsing ...interesting to watch it weaken everywhere all at once like that. heh.. I think I'm good with it. Time to move on.

probably not... The short reason for that is because it's not deemed or shown to be as necessary. That and general societal apathy to responsibility - but this latter aspect is a sociological crisis for a different time. LOL when I was Met zygote ( heh ) it was required. Everyone had to ... because everyone new the models were just not that reliably precise. They're better, but I'm sure there's a lot of arguers that say otherwise. I can tell from experience in both eras, pre and post 2000, there have been less in the way of vaster positive(negative) busts, respectively since then. The frequency being down hearkens to more reliance. Frankly, it's depressing... there was always a chance that so-and-so would end up being more. But you took the good with the bad ...sometimes, a lot of time, it was the other way. Man, the 1980s were notorious for epic Charlie Brown blizzards. The 1990s were better at not setting up everyone for magnificent ghosts, but interestingly ... missed more on the positive side. We seemed to get one good snow event a winter that was a rush to warn scenario. . I've extolled the awesomeness of Dec 23 1997 several times. 1-3 of glop --> 20" of powder. Anyway, the models have gotten to point where as much as we may be less charmed, they are still at a different level of usefulness than they were prior to 2000. That's just existential. So anyway... the urgency and need for now-casting isn't considered a priority, because the intra-event variances of the different storm metrics ... mm they don't go crazy like that anymore. Might even be presumptive. You know, the Boxing Day storm in 2010 ...that as "quasi positive bust" imo. Because it had been suppressed to the point where there really was not system any long on the charts for a couple of cycle at the low/ghosted most point. Then, inside of 72 hours it merely hinted. It really wasn't until 36 hours that it came roaring back. By 2010, that's bordering on model failure on the positive side. Relative to the state of the art of the time, that was really all but too late. In this current dying system... I'm not sure this needed to be down(up) gradated over what was original 'cast. We'll see how the objective accounts lays out during postmortem but it seems so far that it was acceptable gains(losses) wrt that.

Well they do... the effort is referred to as "now-casting" ... The idea is to tailor the forecast as the results are unfolding, which moves the goal posts on whichever metric is or isn't behaving according to the plan. ...etc I good example of this is flood headline management. There's a flash flood watch issue mid way through the event, or not. Warnings then will or won't need applying ... based upon what is observed. They can forecast a high wind warning, and if only three reports of down trees occurs, that by definition verifies the warning - even though the general dystopian hobbyists expects down forests. LOL ...kidding there but you get it...

Part of the issue is that any precipitation event is background favored to over perform over quantitative/guidance-based QPF totals. This is an unavoidable aspect of CC. This storm performed pedestrian as far as Nor'easter/coastal event climatology, but over performed on QPF relative to that. It seems the relativity aspect doesn't filter analytically by many when it comes to assessing forecast. Like Wiz was intimating, ...all storms will have over and unders, and right ons. What you can do is determine the axis of modeled QPF or wind or surf ... vs whichever metric being studied. Then, plot all the empirical results on a bell-curve graph. Super impose the two graphs. If the interquartile density of results is left of the storm forecast axis/max, the system under performed. If it is over the max, it over performed. If it's closely spaced then it performed according to the guidance profile/projection.

Man ...that 3.4 is astounding really. Just a cursory evaluation and comparison of these curves, https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=nino3.4 .. what sets this year apart is that every curve there, other than the present year's ongoing ... demoed a period of downward trajectory between mid spring to early autumns. One can make that out just eyeballing, but if you looked at May1 to September15-ish period trend lines, even 2015 was slightly negative during that span of time. Otherwise, they were more demonstratively so. Yet, the 3.4 has risen the entire time... straight through what one can only surmise was/is a climate normal behavior for an intermediate nadir. So, for first time at least among these years since 2008 there was no intermediate negative recovery. I wonder if this would be so for all years - It's a nuance ob but it's true nonetheless. The other obvious elephant in this picture is that this 3.4 is like that jet at a memorial fly by that peals away toward the heavens.. I just find that specific aspect about the trend line since May 1/summer behavior to be interesting for unique behavior.

It’s already shallowed out to 1004 mb according to WPC

2010 was unusual for tropospheric fold event occurring along the n arc of the cyclonic envelope. More typically that’s associated with the wrap around stinger - hence the phrase ‘sting jet’ There are a lot of examples but 2005 is a good case study of the more typical sting event