Typhoon Tip

Rad motions are generally S to N, west of the Hudson River Valley. Just sayn'

Yeah the more I look at this ... the GFS is at minimum questionable. The upside (also) is that QPF may be underdone up under the NW quadrant of the 700 to 500 mb cyclonic arc

LOL, JMA refuses ...

well, blizzard is more about visibility. If you get 6" of snow, and 55 mph routine gusting, your' getting blizzard like conditions. We tend to associated blizzard with big snow depths. There's certainly lap over in how you can get to a terrible visibility and dangerous scenario... but in this case, we still probably have a wind issue. I haven't read their forecast discussions, just throwing this in

We're getting a storm... I don't care about senses of loss whether it's historic or even just pedestrian. It's likely to be somewhere in between. It's funny, there are two competing concepts ( synoptic ) that are both true. The -PNA never really correlate(d)(s) with this. But, there was a relative +d(PNA) which contains this system. Both the standard EOFs and the rotated PCAs at CPC versions, show this latter nested anomaly. It can get the deed done. It seems these very recent global version are wavering toward the former, more non-linear/transitive forcing. Why that is trying to usurp now just 18 hours before go - that's maybe just the state of the technology.

You could be metaphysically culpable in this, Jer' I mean, in 1978 ... you spent the storm in the Bay Area, longing from afar. This time? what, did you think you could outfox destiny's weird fetish intention of making sure Jerry misses out? lol

Can this winter please go ahead end now ? haha ... Ah boy. Yeah if that decides to be the verifying solution, this is largely a bust. Probably not in the fairest or absolute sense... call it a 70 .. 80% bust. The NAM did tick E spanning the last couple of runs... something is causing this to do this almost on top of the event. It would be fascinating to understand what exactly that is, whether it is something about data sampling/grid initializations, vs over processing, or somehow error born in between. The larger synoptic scaffolding is unchanged. This is all, 100% of it ( as far as I can tell) idiosyncratic to the internal handling of the system and how it integrates within that synoptic totality. Not sure there is really a way to account for that, so any such study might just reveal this to be random. Interesting.

I'd like another model cycle. I'd say if the 18z's roll in with another of this seeming attempt to get a reduction by our noses, we might consider limiting this to major headlines. Also ... the difference between a "major" event and something say, top 5/history and so forth, isn't likely to register much differently in the high 90s percentile population. Just being a member of the species and modern culture ( lol ), but intuitively the individual would see 1/8th mi vis and snow 3/4 the way up their SUV's tire wells, and figure for a well handled event. perhaps the distinction is more for us in that sense. This storm is idiosyncratically compact, and if it bumps 50 mi E, we're just going to have to consider that when it comes to snowfall distribution. Now-cast workout... SE Mass could take a particular pummeling, even in a shaded total system profile.

There's some normalization going on in the NAM back east, too. It's subtle, but ex, Login was 53 kts in the middle BL sustained wind fields yesterday, and now it is only 41 in the FOUS grid. The QPF is down a bit too. It's also down in PHL and NYC compared to what it was yesterday. I suspect yesterday's cinemas were the max d-drippers for this storm's modeling movie, and now we're just going to end up with a major and not much more if this continues. It's still perhaps something more than major in the SE zones - for now. Fine. But if we limit the areal coverage it gets harder to justify distinction. I say this ...not just because of the NAM, but there's a 10 ... 12% amplitude theft going on across the board as we've entered these late modeling innings. (note, I'm not incorporating the HRRR or the like). Now-cast could perhaps bring the theft back, ... but, since that behavior has been noted over recent years worth of modeling ( actually), it's sort of built in confidence/expectation to take place. As an aside, it seems what we haven't seen is a modeled is a system that started out meager and grew 8% per run until go time. It seems like technology favors going the other way, either by error or design... We're always giving back in the closing arguments.

It's becoming a limiting factor for me. Taking this out of top 5 contention about as fast as the models have quietly been speeding this up on everyone. Some runs I've seen are under 12 hrs with the bulk and go to wind whipped flurries that only look like the storms still going because of the snow being blown around type of event. Heh. I don't think this is slowing back down, either. It's part of the world we live in where the atmosphere is challenged to do that kind of storm. As much as I see all that, I also am a bit suss re the models becoming radially so compact. It's almost like relative to climatology, it is too intense? 968 mb lows passing between the Del Marv and just inside the BM ... it seems we had better QPF sprawl when shallower "big" storms have made that transit. interesting... Storms are like snow flakes. No two are exactly the same.

Yeah Ray I’m a little suspicious of the back off in the local QPF with the NAM actually being closer, while at consistent relative intensity/deep layer structural aspects I’ve seen this before where a model just blanks out a quadrant. It’s not usually real… If the 06z pulls the same track and intensity, I’d be surprised if it didn’t repaint larger QPF up here.

This storm is not gonna stall and gravy snow for 20 inches after the fact ‘case anybody is wondering if this is gonna match that unless the modeling changes

I'm just speaking to the reactionary crowd song. "As though" - that's how they're sounding. I saw GFS S followed x too, y too posts ... it's nerviness controlling people's reaction without being analytic about what they are seeing. Hence the "if" I don't really care honestly. Folks will engage how they want. I'm just offering that observation - take it or leave it. But the 12z and the 18z as I demoed above are utterly meaninglessly different at 42 hours. Ferocious combination of blinding blown choking snow rate hurled along by possible grid contending wind gusts. Good luck

There was/is a limit to how much this surface reflection and it's integration with the mid level could actually migrate NW and we're probably just bouncing now along that limit

If en masse everything moves like that together, you have to question the validity of the input grids/data initialization. That said, this looks like noise to me is not alleviating any concern over this from 12z

paranoid dopa addicts

Completely agreed here. I mentioned this either last night or the night before, when the ensemble means were down to 522 dm at 84 to 90 hours lead! Historic events are typically not seen in the mid range. More often than not - though yes there are rare exceptions - your plotting a major with very impressive parametrics, and then it goes out of control almost during now cast and bests even the outlooks. 1993 and 'Sandy' are examples of notable exceptions. This one has been suggesting history for since about 48 hours ago, when it was just one or two outliers going bonkers. Now it seems there are less conservative model visions than going the other way. So I dunno. going to be an interesting event

Met buddy of mine was telling me that the ECM was showing more QPF over Pennsylvania back west of the main development also… Maybe a sign that somebody has more northwest correction

Reminds me of 1997 convective snow hosing only tunneling through a colder atmosphere

same over here

Wanna fire up a thread for the 9-15"er on Friday? LOL

Pretty much. Yes. The important underlying concept is "restoring" ... Any anomaly is in an unstable state; nature is always trying to restore back to a state of entropy, or inaction. Thus, action will occur to bring it back to a state of inaction. That is occurring always, in perpetuo, at all scales. So, when you have an anomaly, relative to another anomaly ...like this week, like -PNA, inside of which there is a +d(PNA) on the other of multiple SD... the -PNA may blind the advent of an arena, within which favors the production of a restoring event. All storms are restoring events. It's just a matter of how the restoration goes about finding balance. Global scaled indices, don't produce storms... per se. But, they are indicators for arenas/temporally boundary regimes that are conducive to needing restoration. If you get this .. you can immediately intuitively gather that when nesting anomalies within other anomalies, the complexity gets pretty bad pretty quickly. We have to determine the roots, and balance those.

Dude... ha. no shit but excluding the SW zones/NY megalopolis, that SNE snow layout is about as close to a twin to 1978 Feb as I've seen. This system is no analog but I just find that interesting.

Agreed... despite my campaigning for NW positions in all this, I have also made it clear that SE positions are 'within the cone of uncertainty' as that vamp goes. I mean they can happen in this. There's compelling reason to see NW ... maybe helluva now-casting opportunity, too, but that doesn't mean things will do that. Anyway, should the EC/RGEM prevail, it is what it is. Not impossible. I wills say though, despite the over night runs seemingly halting the NW corrections? That may have only been a relaxation. These globals in a minute are going to be interesting to compare against the higher res west corrections we just witnessed. Right? wow. And the RGEM did in fact just tick NW so.. mm... it's still in the air a bit .

I've also upgraded my home sys and run Windows 11 these days - which I don't like for other reason..ha. I seem to have less issue with Firefox - which also was pretty bad back in the day. I may check out Brave and see. I need to be able to turn off trajectories tho. And I'll never use Google - so if Brave is affiliated with that engine I'd probably defer.