Typhoon Tip

Saw that. It still left something to be desired but is a good start. From mid way through the 14th to the end of the 18s that entire 3.75 days has troughiness rolling impulses underneath us, with cold and relative +PP situated N. Only one clips us but ... certainly a good table set from this range...

Some flurries at the moment this far inland. First I've seen snow this year as a personal achievement ( I was in Va Beach over the holiday so missed )

Yeah, I wasn’t too concerned about exact dates. I was being whimsical. I just know that we went through a really really good stretch where pretty much every year seemed to deliver at least winter …maybe it’s just been since 2020 or something I don’t know, but where I am there has not been a good winter since 2015. I don’t really gather much praise around March events unless they’re rivals, or winters that give one sig event. The reason I stopped at 2010 is because 2012 was probably the worst winter that I’ve ever experienced

I feel like 1992 thru about 2010 was basically the Patriots Tom Brady era of weather for us... ever since then it's been like every season since he left

Dearth of "blizzard" triggers may have something to do with that. haha we'll see -

Erstwhile -AO didn't payout on our side of the hemisphere. Happens. I remember back in the hell autumn of 2006. Toward the end of that extraordinary warm run ( after Xmas of course...), the AO tanked. But we stayed warm for a good two weeks. Eurasia got freak cold right away... Eventually the wave# spun around the axis and caught up with the America and we broke cold late in January... At least enough for the Valentines storm that February. Not sure what happened after that cause I start tuning out on winters most years after about the 20th of February. Anyway, -AO may unload unevenly.

That year was really weird.. My buddy in FIT ( just N of Rt 2 in those hills) got something like 130" ...I was still in Acton at the time and got something like 70 - which isn't bad... It was above normal but Acton and FIT are like 20 mi tops.

Yup, wrote about this last page or the one before, this morning. This is not a-typical of 'big warm up' topography whence during these progressive/fast flow patterns. The "correction vector" is less length of time. Over and over again, over the years of modeling we can observe this. A 6-day warm up ends up 18 to 48 hours of warm sector. This did it exactly like that again.

Okay, in deference to the above ... I like reading this from the MJO desk: • The RMM-based MJO signal continues to remain amplified, with the enhanced convective envelope approaching the Maritime Continent. Dynamical models depict continued eastward propagation during the next 2-3 weeks. • The dominance of low-frequency modes (ENSO, IOD) has been declining over the last few weeks, while the MJO has become stronger and more coherent. I also just want to remind - the MJO is not a pattern drive. It's a modulator. It will positively(negatively) interfere with the surrounding super synopsis ... if the latter is receptive(not receptive) to it's forcing. Part of which is the Pacific ENSO aspects ( down stream of the IOD brick wall of head-on collision sudden pattern death!) ... Anyway, this particular MJO "means more" than priors if you ask me, because as they hint ... this projection of it has more a positive interference. I just checked the overnight numerical telecons and the EPO is suddenly collapsed toward neutral between the 12th and 20th. That could be an early nod to physical forcing transmitting down wind of the erstwhile -WPO. Which is actually the lagged correlation between those fields in the total Pacific arc manifold. Short words ... yeah, there's hope approaching the 20th for winter enthusiasts.

Lol, .01" west of the Annisquam River Bridge

Exactly ... In dailies/practical terms, there's nothing there to be either disappointed with, or happy about. It's really oblivious. Agree, be it MJO ...or a Asian wave break in the flow ...something to impact enough forcing to synergy/constructively interfere. One thing I am noticing is the WPO is ( numerically) negative, despite the EPO flatlined. If an MJO is destined to propagate out of the Marine region and comes into western Pac up underneath, the two could certainly do what we are asking above. If ( and hopefully when) that happens, we see a pattern change from this marching shit above into something more classical. It could do it pretty quickly too - we'll see.

I don't think there's a whole helluva lot of predictive skill right now - more entropy than is even normal model-climate ( for the general reader here). Typically by day 10 in the ensemble means there is a better sense of where the R-wave anchor points are situated, but in this case ... that's a very difficult layout to ascertain. See below... each ovoid is an identifiable L/W ( reasonably consistent among the EPS and GEPS, too), and when putting this in cinema ...they are marching right along. This is a reshuffling hemisphere is what we are looking at. Predictive skill goes out the window. The wave over the continent appears to be more 'standing' in nature, which I argue is an artifact more so of MT forcing and the perennial footprint just perhaps a little more amplified - in other words, it may not be as real as it looks there - speculative. But that Pacific is undulating through -PNA:+PNA:-PNA ...etc, as each of those L/Ws propagates through the region east of the Date Line. How those will periodically transmit signals down stream will vary in just about equal positive and negative values, up and down, ever couple days or so. Resulting, there could and likely will be events materializing that were not there two days ago...then, mysteriously vanish two days in the future, whenever this sort of reshuffle is going on.

This is what happens in these progressive patterns. When you see a big warm up spanning 7 to 10 days on the week two+ frames during progressive basal tendencies, the big warm up ends up being a single day to day and half warm sector. That's exactly what the last 10 days have done to the big warm up prior to the 20th. It's compressed the timing. It's impressive for 2 days: Saturday's just calm and balmy, and then Sunday's a windy warm sector. Pretty good 850 mb jet core out ahead of the cold front so that could make embedded convection interesting... but, the 925's don't look very impressive to me so the idea of leanin' trees for hours heh.

Ugly 18z GFS run for holiday mood

Mm ...not sure about "very" as qualifying adjective in that discussion LOL In my attempt at an unbiased observation there, the Weeklies 30 -day mean looks like a modestly amplified variant of the perennial base-line pattern across the continent. I won't go into much further than that. Y'all have more experience working with that particular part of the Euro product suite - I'm just saying what that looks like. It's only modestly more amplified than the perennial canvas.

Oh yeah ... Okay, that leads me to wonder if this grows in future guidance. I think those events in the field are too amplified given the 'super synopsis' . How much so remains to be seen, but if that flattens out some we may end up with more BD trouble.

Recommend the '60 Minutes' segment on Quantum Computing. Unless one is intellectually challenged or for some other reason is just too impaired in that regard ... the content will dazzle and inspire the imagination in ways that prior to had zero plausibility. The practical application of QC is projected for ~ 2030. For a lot of reasons. ...where does one even begin ... the trope 'this is going to change everything' is uh ... VERY apropos. Put it this way ... transistor theory is the bases of all artificial computing, from ENIAC (1945) to the World Powerful Supercomputer (2022), even the latter has a limitation. The limitation is in fact a dead leg stop. It cannot penetrate the Uncertainty Principle. The entire manifold of computer technology, ultimately cannot do that. The gross way to describe how 'quantum processing' works is that the electrons themselves are encoded with the information. There is an immense manifold of mathematics between that aspect and the following statement, but, as Dr. Michio Kaku (among the pantheon of interviewees) stated, "... All possibilities in a given system are determined SIMULTANEOUSLY" What one has to understand to really begin to grapple a hold of the significance of that is, a vast number of problems in nature cannot be solved by calculating the linear dependency of A--> B --> C ... N terms. Those problems will be solvable. AND, ...here's the part that really blows the mind. Not only will they be solvable, but they will be solvable ... very close to instantly. It's hard to really get one's head or even imagination around what the means. There are problems in DNA science that cannot be solved in the ABCN method. They are quantum uncertainty dependent. This is true also in ... duh duh dunnnn weather forecasting The positive feed-back ( in the sense of "Moore's Law" for example) on research in general is incalculable. They ( meaning humanity) will be able to explore every field of physics boundlessly beyond where present day limitations hold them back - and believe me, there is stuff out there that's already esoteric and lesser known, and exotic, already. Cutting edge stuff left on the research bench because it's all rendered just as quickly outmoded. I don't personally think humanity will survive it. I think it's a Fermian loop-hold that cannot be escaped from when factoring in human nature; and the rest of the cosmos' linear propagation will continue on down the river of time, leaving us behind. But we'll see... Dr Kaku also ended the segment with the daunting prose to the affect of, 'Whom ever controls this first, will be the ultimate global economic power.' I dunno. I don't think 'IQ OF God' technology was ever intended to be incentivized that way

Is that real wedging or just the model's attempt at resolving mountain perturbation

Yeaaah, in his/her defense ... it may be a 'too early in the year' to pay dividends type of thing. I was serious when I asked, 'what am I missing here' because if there were/is some qualifying statement like ^ ( for example) then okay - But out of hand that looks like a strong penetration through typical cold correlation over the Americas. The seasonality aspect is dubious though - if the pattern is receptive to the MJO than it's receptive - the two will be in a constructive interference. Merely seeing a wave strength on the RMM is an insufficient basis alone. We did clock one insignificant snow event over the t-giggedy holiday week, and this gig last night up N. ...etc... There was also a -EPO burst about 10 days or more ago, which may have ultimately sourced the cold load for some of the chillier days. Let's remind, Novie went down as a neggie month.

It just did ... what am I missing here?

evidence here of an STJ https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=atlpac-wide&product=truecolor

Dude... this looks like a crude attempt at a STJ https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=atlpac-wide&product=truecolor ..time sensitive I don't particularly like recent trends with the bulk ensemble means, from either the EPS of GEFs through the 20th. Rumor has it the deep field astronomy has the cosmos expanding into cold fantasies - maybe, no opinion for now.

The problem I have with the "conservative" approach is that I believe in many cases the agenda of denial are really using it to "delay" acceptance - the recourse when they can't refute that which is empirically proven to be so. Continuing to deny in the face of objective reality becomes something of either a moral issue, or that of failing intelligence. There is nothing that needs to be conserved about empirical data - and if it creates a vector toward harm via mathematics, delay becomes dangerous and ultimately a form of Darwinism mechanics I don't want to be a winner of that particular race. It's not like those of us with moral IQ and will for the success of ours and all other species have any choice in the matter. We can't leave the party. We are imprisoned by gravity upon a doomed planet, because of their actions overwhelming our efforts. I just can't accept the false logic of denying the possibility of dying so you can keep doing the dangerous, until you prove its real. NO, you stop doing what ever it is you are doing, THEN, prove it won't kill you, FIRST. Once that's secured, resume activity ... and hope your fucking right. All "denialism" achieves is creating a reality increased risk. Tantamount to the height of stupidity. And it is getting away with murder really for creating that delay. Remember that scene in Star Wars: Return Of The Jedi, near the end, when Darth Sidious was taking joy in zapping Luke with his hate lighting ... He pauses to say, "Young Fool. Only now at the end do you understand" - welcome to hell.

Here's an article Kieran Mulvaney/ NAT Geo, that mentions Mann/'Our Fragile Moment,' among others What’s the big deal about Earth getting 2°C hotter? The increase may sound inconsequential, but scientists say there are serious ramifications for life as we know it if the planet exceeds the climate target. By Kieran Mulvaney Published December 1, 2023 • 6 min read Thirty-five years after NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the United States Congress about the specter of climate change, Earth is on pace to experience 2.7°Celsius (4.9 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming by 2100. And while there is little consensus among nations about how and how fast to reduce the carbon emissions that are responsible for that warming, there is near universal consensus that this temperature increase would be disastrous. For that reason, the 196 signatories to the Paris Agreement, signed in 2015, committed to keeping the mean rise in global temperatures below 2° C (3.6° F) above pre-industrial levels and preferably limit any increase to 1.5° C (2.7° F). Participants in the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 28), taking place in Dubai November 30-December 12, will be expected to update their progress on meeting those goals. Given that the globe is already about 1.2 °C (2.2° F) warmer than it was before the Industrial Revolution, that target may seem, depending on your level of optimism, either highly ambitious or perfectly within reach. But what exactly does this goal save us from, and how was it selected in the first place? How 2° C became a target According to Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), the targets are as much political as scientific. "Ultimately, there is nothing geophysically sacrosanct about 1.5, or two, or three, or any other particular number,” he says. What’s more important to recognize, he argues, is that with every incremental degree of warning, the greater the likelihood that Earth will reach irreversible “tipping points”— or, as he puts it, "the more likely it is that we experience what I sometimes call unpleasant surprises.” Furthermore, explains Maria Ivanova, director of the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University, the concept of limiting warming to two degrees significantly predated the Paris Agreement. It was, she says, a “back of the envelope calculation” in the 1970s by an economist at Yale, William Nordhaus, who argued in a pair of papers that a two-degree increase would push the climate beyond the limits of human experience. (Which cities will still be livable in a world altered by climate change?) However, it would be wrong to infer that two degrees was just plucked from thin air, cautions Michael Mann, director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania. “Clearly there is no absolute threshold,” he says. “It’s more a somewhat objective definition of where we move from ‘bad’ into ‘really bad’ territory. Two degrees Celsius is a reasonable dividing line where we cross into the ‘red’ across all areas of concern.” Some places are warming more quickly than others Is two degrees in fact too much warming? “Well, 1.2°C warming, which is where we are, is too much,” says Mann. “We’re already seeing devastating consequences. So, it’s really a question of just how bad we’re willing to let it get. 1.5°C would be bad, two degrees really bad, and three degrees is perhaps, as I argue in my new book Our Fragile Moment, civilization ending.” Mann notes that a 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report found that the difference between 1.5°C of warming and two degrees could be devastating. “Basically, what it shows is that the additional 0.5°C of warming would likely mean the loss of Arctic sea ice, three times as much extreme heat, far greater levels of extinction and the possible loss of coral reefs across the planet. It would take us even closer to the tipping points for loss of Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets (and the meters of sea level rise that go with it). Pretty stark stuff,” he says. (Could billions of oysters protect coastlines from rising seas?) Additionally, of course, an average global increase is just that— an average. Some places, such as the Arctic, are warming four times more quickly than the rest of the planet; what may seem like a moderate amount of sea level rise in parts of the United States, could be catastrophic in low-lying Pacific Island states. For that reason, such states have been at the forefront of emphasizing the importance of limiting warming to 1.5°C. A case for temperature targets But if 1.2°C degrees of warming is already too much, and two degrees is potentially cataclysmic, should we be setting our targets lower? Should we even be worrying about temperature targets at all? “It is imperative to have a target,” argues Ivanova. “Having a goal is critical. It is like having a speed limit, particularly when you think about how speed limits are communicated. It is one thing when you have a static sign that says 60 miles an hour. But it is another thing when you are nearing one of those signs that flashes your speed at you. Because then what you do is you push the brakes because that real time feedback of ‘Oh, I am above the limit,’ actually does lead to behavior change.” However, argues Swain, the brakes are not even close to being pumped enough right now. "If we could wave a magic wand and [eliminate] carbon emissions tomorrow, we probably could keep [the increase] under 1.5°C degrees," says Swain "But of course, we can't; that magic wand does not exist. And I think the same thing is largely true of two. I think two degrees is also at this point, a very ambitious target relative to our current trajectory.” It is unquestionable, Swain acknowledges, that there has been a lot of progress toward reducing carbon emissions. “Are we on a much better path than we were in, say, 2005? Yes, we are. There has been an explosion in clean energy. There’s incredible science going on. There have been tremendous public policy successes.” But, he argues, much more is needed, at a far quicker rate, for warming to not only slow down but stop. If that can happen in time to prevent Earth warming by two degrees, then that would be an achievement of sorts. But if it can be done well before that threshold is reached, that would be a significantly greater success for all.

OT, It's become a wholesale internet crisis of greed, and its about to shut out all for access to free information - across the board. Ad blockers are becoming overwhelmed by exclusionary code, and as soon as the host site knows its working, they not only deny access but even try to force you to see their ads before you can even close the page ... You Tube Nat Geo ( edit, if you want Nat Geo axis, just create an account called, "[email protected]" that works) NY Times ... The list is huge actually. ...capitalism is no longer a salvation when it gets to the point where it suffocates the very freedoms upon which capitalism is allowed to thrive.