Typhoon Tip

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

this thing's winding down. 'it'll take another 36 hours of family denial before the plugs pulled but it's done

Still, we're likely to average warmer than normal after Tues .. until that fropa late Friday or whenever that occurs. It's a matter of how much. Right now... 70s ought to do it. The GFS flashed us with several runs the other day promoting a bigger show. All we've really done since then is compress those heights - the ridge exertion is still technically there but yeah, the recent guidance are imposing more polar branch than priors.

yup... I wrote about this stuff in that interim storm/Oct thread but since it's a qualitative on the month overall I'm putting it here: Impressive +PNA index by October 10. Does the PNAP respond ...? In November I'd say we're looking at an early winter trigger with this... Mid October? not so sure. But it hearkens to mind an interesting aspect about our climate recency. Multi-source/ heavily agreed upon +3 SD index and it's showing up on the actualized ensemble mean synoptic layouts, as an unusually deep and pervasive negative anomaly axis N/NE of HA in the Pacific. It's also been been growing in coherence ... This strike me as a primitive telecon outlook/and attempt by the hemisphere to yet again ... snow in October. I gotta say... I saw it snow in October ..almost never in my first three decades living either in southern lower Michigan or SNE. Since ~ 2005? at least half the Octobers, particularly in the last 15 years, have hosted either a snow or a cryo-supporting atmosphere. Snowing in November has increased as well... though the startling earliness of Octobers - in no small part because it'll be snowing with still autumn foliage in the backdrops - is more impressive. 20 years worth ... let's see if we can add another October to the swelling sample size.

Impressive +PNA index by October 10. Does the PNAP respond ...? In November I'd say we're looking at an early winter trigger with this... Mid October? not so sure. Anyway, multi-source/ heavily agreed upon +3 SD and it's showing up on the actualized ensemble means as an unusually deep and convincingly spatially involving negative anomaly N/NE of HA in the Pacific. It's also been been growing in coherence ... probably should put this in the October thread. This strike me as a primitive telecon outlook/and attempt by the hemisphere to yet again ... snow in October. I gotta say... I saw it snow in October ..almost never in my first three decades living either in southern lower Michigan or SNE. Since ~ 2005? at least half the Octobers, particularly in the last 15 years, have hosted either a snow or a cryo-supporting atmosphere. Snowing in November has increased as well... though the startling nature of it is October - in no small part because it'll be snowing with still autumn foliage in the backdrops. 20 years worth ... let's see if we can add another October to the swelling sample size.

what are the sounding/profiles like compared to the near coastal SSTs

I don't even observe much of a digging trough... This was weakly fed really. The heights just cored out from internal processes more so - though 'some 'thing of a trigger aided. But it seemed to go disproportionately deeper relative to what it started out with, after the fact, giving it an allusion of some spontaneity to it. I suggested the other day there's a transitive/non-linear forcing coming from the large scale - by definition ..that's not always exposed to convention observation techniques. Think 'rogue wave' phenomenon as an analogy. Anyway, it may be too early to claim failure on coverage. The guidance blend really has this maximizing tonight, with 988 -ish mb low approaching from the S; with 1030mb high pivoting E over top while that happens... likely lays in a pretty significant llv jet axis and given that low gets to ISP it's probably going to be pretty nasty over E CT/RI/E Mass per the course.

this next Wed - Sat looking increasingly WAR -like in the GFS's recent guidance... 00z, 06z and 12z runs GGEM's sort of coming around. Euro thinks ala carte mid November

I did not lol ... 12z GFS looks even warmer... By that, just less obstructed in general. 570+ DM thickness both Thu and Fri, with 582 non-hydrostatic isohypsis situate NW of ALB ... It's actually looking more more WAR-like

under one of those Texas Panhandle stationary super cells

Does seem like the lower tropospheric foot of the cyclone's currently snipped off the warm front and drifting just by impression of satellite.

You know ...there are certain things the NAM is good at - though they seldom if ever opportune to showcase for this forum. Namely, 'convective initiation' Another thing, I really like looking at the FOUS grid before winter storms. I know it's error and idiosyncratics. I apply those second nature on the fly and find those numerical aspects to be hugely useful for interpolating weather aspects. So it will be missed. I'm not trying to defend it's synoptic horror show ...particularly beyond 48 hours, no. But when this model goes away, there will be no FOUS gridded product from these other models to be acquainted with.

Correct did that at 06 z too. Looks like there's a low out there ~ 995 mb, replete with a bent back warm front and dangling cold boundary, yet the NAM-aramadingdong thinks it's a 985 Cat 1 hurricane.

There's irony this hour ... because while I essentially agree that this was never tropical this, that, nor the other d-drip worthy ...the NAM is actually attempting to perform one of the most rapid conversions to purer tropical core and even RI cycling than has ever been observed or even thought plausible in the Terran physical manifold. LOL

Broadly conceptualizing ... Baroclinic systems expand there influence due to frontal synoptic forcing... and temperature gradient related mechanics. Barotropic tropical systems are by physics drawn to core ... this thing's going for Category 3 intensity with that NAM look there - probably a erroneous solution.

Yeah, the NAM's pretty much going 90th percentile full profile conversion straight to a tropical entity with that solution As such, it's contracting

I understand how this stuff is to be interpreted. I'm looking at the particulars of the synoptic parameters spanning those 4 days. Thu and Fri in particular are much warmer than normal. not -1 ...more like +15 off of the last two consec runs of the GFS operational. 570 thickness would support 87 F even this late in the year by the way. I've seen 82 F as recent as 2020 up here in SNE on November 7-10 (after it Halloween snowed that year) Indian Summer, under 850s around +14C and sun so sloped one's shadows were 30 feet long. We can definitely still get it done.

That seems diametrical to the current operation guidance, CMC/GFS/EURO All three have 564 to 570+ hydrostatic heights, with W to SW/NW off shore components, Wed thru Sat. Now ...this may differ from ens mean/bulk signaling and telecon indexes therefrom, et al... not sure, haven't checked. But, the operational runs are warmer than just mild those 4 days as of these last 00z guidance

I dunno, was there one scheduled? ha It prompted me to look.. I hadn't been paying attention because of this thing in the foreground but Wed thru Sat this next week look pretty mild? Not sure if that will qualify as a torch, per se. There are differing subjective opinions on what that entails ...but recent GFS runs have 570+ dm thickness centered on a week from today. With 564 to 570 Wed, Thu and Sat .. All four days with general W wind. Some frontal entanglement but looks weak with very little actual CAA Fwiw. The Euro's bit more aggressive with a cold front on Friday but still doing so amid a warm anomaly in the ambience doesn't send a very chilly vibe. 570+ before the front, 562 behind with WNW isn't the same as having a high pressure parked N imparting days of chilly ENE like this week.

It's almost like a TUTT on steroids in some ways.