Typhoon Tip

Should the 29-02 not materialize ... there is also, albeit vague due to the long range, a signal emerging for the 6/7/8th off February.

+Yes, John's nicely picking up where I left off in that missive, "having to now-cast..", offering some methodology in doing so.

So ...question for ..I don't know whom. These Kuchera charts, I guess a few minutes with Ghat GPT is all that is needed to get a reasonable model of how exactly they are coming up with the graphics. But assuming that they are really just using the 10:1 ratios applied to modeled QPF ? In a situation with 15:1 below the DGZ regions, not being intruded by a warm layer.... does that imply adding to the Kuchera output?

Two aspects I don't have a problem with ... A, giant QPF realization B, displacing transition zones to higher latitude, going from snow to dry IP falling thru low level aggregates like the latter are dodging being shattered by very proficiently froze bullets whizzing by them ... all under an exceptionally sloped winter sounding structure. A happens because this whole ordeals pulling up an unusually high PWAT source - benefiting winter enthusiasts, happenstance lobbing it over a near historically cold lower tropospheric slab of very fresh, nascent intrusion. The former is usual transport set up... and so positive precipitation anomaly results. Fine. As for B, I actually don't have a problem with that happening ... to some degree. Let's not get crazy. I know I'm in the minority in this dopa crazed din of objective rationality ( haha) but the reason this storm is happening is because warm air is going over cold air. So...longer winded sermon: we're having an arctic intrusion in temporal coincidence with a time-lagged MJO phase 6 STJ attempting to assert itself into the OV/TV regions with it's highly correlated warm anomaly. Two titanic signals clashing... storm results. It's really quite elegantly coherent like that - for me anyway. But these opposing forces are exceedingly polarized. The cold is ridic. The warm correlation is fighting back - so to speak.. It's going to go over top because it physically can't go anywhere else ( btw ...I'm just writing all this for the art and fun of it - am aware you know all this). That means this whole situation is uniquely set up to maximize the slopes of these sounding. I could see it setting a record for synoptic difference between 700 mb over White Plains NY say, while it is 12 F at the surface. This might be similar to 1994, 10,000K sleet column, only just a tad colder. All I'm saying is that there's conceptual plausibility to an IP carpet bombing. So, using the NAM as proxy, the 860 mb is closed, weakly so...albeit still closed; it aligns an axis W-E just south of the Pike on this 12z rendition, at warmest synoptic pass. That is about 50 mi N of where the model placed that same axis 12z yesterday. It seems to me, the IP line is moving in concert with that repositioning, more so than the model just arbitrarily warming it aloft. We can kind of get a sense of that repositioning below The IP line is falling probably from an elevated layer above this... because it is actually below 0C at this 850 mb rendering down to the beaches of the south shores. The 700mb level, meanwhile, remains open... not closing, but flat. This latter circumstance is a bit idiosyncratic, and would limit the IP line penetration in latitude, given this NAM solution - its angle of ascent at that level is oriented more W-E. It's like utterly locking the IP right where we see that black line. If the flow between 850 and 700+ was more S... trust me, it would drive the IP line bodily N over this arctic air mass. Now ...this is the wholesale structure of the NAM. The NAM could also redraw all this back to 12z yesterday's rendition, it would reposition the IP line back S.. and the variance in the total structure et al, like above? it would almost be unnoticeable if not looking for it. The NAM has a N-W bias over the eastern CONUS as an ongoing operational concern. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that we are just seeing that express. Probably have to now-cast that

Ha.. you're kidding, right? try telling heroin users to stop with the smack -

Meh you guys are chasing giga motions with needling obsession over sensibilities of loss Meaningless noise. Nothing really changed.

You wanna get rid of this thing in a timely fashion if you want next weekend

Hm hm hm hmmmm God you’re deviant

Where you guys are hung up with snow… I just like interesting weather events. So I guess under the circumstances that makes us allies. LOL

Better presentation on the GEFs First time since the index signal was detected, that’s been the case

My God… This thing‘s been billed 18+ inches and so it shaves a couple inches on recent runs and people are like this sucks this is total bullshit ha ha ha ha ha ha

That’s called “warm air seclusion” by the way if anybody’s curious… Phenomenon not uncommonly found in bombing cyclones.

Wtf ... Channel 7/NBC affiliate out of Boston is buckin' for a 24-36" of eastern Mass ??!! tell me that's some kid with a free afternoon and a chapgpt meme kit

NMBs latest storm projection

I think you were onto that aspect last week if memory serves... some post along the way. And I agree... The problem with this being an index -based signal ( meaning it seems to only be in the indexes) is that it doesn't qualify aspects like the actual positioning of features into sweep or key-slot positions. Bad locations still fit. That's the reason why I've only been discussing the window in time and not really pushing an actual event. Yet... I mean this can formulate - there's time I don't think that is impossible; one aspect I keep noticing is that the +PNA ridge in the west is actually relatively fixed at along a MT longitude thru the period. It's not clear why the models have such a boner for positioning the trough couplet so far E of that total wave space like that. stretch city!

yeah .. you know, fair enough point. Thing is, if we look back at climatology... we don't typically see 20" this and then 20" that, < 10 days apart. Regardless of cause, that's just a flat fact. If we can count the number of times that's happened in 50 years on one hand, that is by definition rare. But maybe in the sample size, we just haven't had a huge overrunning anomaly next to a cyclone bomb, anyway. In other words, you just can't get the circumstance to arise that often. The problem with huge storms with huge output, they are doing that because there is a huge restoring deficit. Those have to be rare. But look at it this way ... we have not had two huge events spaced closely in time since ... 2015 FEB maybe? that's 11 years ago. Why not? LOL seems pretty f'n rare to me.

I haven't heard ( haven't run out to NWS afds just yet, either ) mention of specific PWAT values in this air mass transporting up underneath the boundary... Given the source is from the deep S/proximity to the Gulf Of Wet Fart Mexico ( I refuse to honor the idiocy of the renaming ...)...it seems we could be shitting a ton more than people are really aware with this whole beast. But we'll see. It's possible to choke-snow fall rates from isentropic lift, tho. I'm also wondering if just gets so extreme that there's thunder, too.

It's a huge index signal centered around the 1st, + and/or - a couple of dates, which are derived from the ensembles. Somewhat ironic, the same ensemble mass -fields that are analyzed in deriving those same index values, do not actually carry a significant event through that period That is oddly troubling. Meanwhile, the operational versions have at least been off and on .. perhaps 50% of the time, plotting then not plotting significant events within that index-signaled window. That's what we are dealing with. Sometimes... the ensemble means will actually collapse toward the denser physically applied operational flagship versions. Rarer...but can happen in that direction. If that is going to be the case this time... proooobably start to see some at least tentative operational agreement on which dates to center on. So far...we've really seen 29/30th to 02/03 and all dates in between. Not really centering... This may also come together/coalesce in guidance better after we get this present major off the boards. I will also add... purely from a climatology of major events historical perspective it is seldom that major winter storms occur in short order. We've seen two moderate impact events pull that off in the past; aggregating to a major by weight of both kind of thing. But this thing on Sun/Mon ... then having an 06z GFS 5 days later is rarely observed.

I mentioned a while ago ( while I was in a meeting and should not have been doing so - ) that the RGEM was a better choice for me overnight. The NAM has a N-W bias over this region of eastern conus/western Atl - which I've been hammering for years ... I know. But with that in mind I was just suspicious that 06z solution was a bit latitude happy. The RGEM 00z-06z were essentially identical within a range of irrelevant noise as well... and also were respectful of 9 degree cold for f-sake. At a larger philosophical approach, this whole situation is like two elephant asses on a collision course - namely...the instance -EPO loading and resulting arctic outbreak, smashing head long into a Phase 6 MJO atmosphere ( the correlations of which are a heat wave in the OV...) trying to rebound. The momentum is established. Two huge weights moving at one another ..Usually, events that are rooted in huge corrections like that are going to happen. It's really not a question if... it's just becomes a needling detail as to what backyard gets what. The scale and amp of Monday's possible lagging coastal impacts is still, believe it or not, a bit of a wild card. I still sense that trying to see through the hugeness of the IB in the foreground ... to then handling the escape capture tendency of surface features is kind of stressing the guidance vision.

overnight RGEMs are better than overnight NAMs for this

Where is the high pressure orientation … if it is sliding off quicker or is weaker that may atone. But N of the LI Sound it is so cold that this system isn’t going to be able to transition before the end of the WAA phase aloft … either way. It’s a matter of concern for the Jersey crowd

This is like different renditions of a Rembrandt … but the essence of the art really isn’t changed

Yes! terrific way to put that. Non-linear wave functions, often expose their influence with that kind of transcendent appeal.

Well, keep in mind that the NBM is an aggregate model, an integration of a bunch of different sources. I guess it’s kind of tantamount to saying if it’s overdone then that means the majority of the models are overdone. It’s not a single source to be questioned in other words…

It’s interesting… there’s been a very bright index signal for many days, actually going back a couple of weeks. Very persistent with the whole wholesale index swap of the PNA. In fact, it’s on the order of four whole standard deviations from negative phase to positive in less than a week That’s almost impossible to do without a restoring system Yet we have some operational model runs that are putting out solutions here and there, admittedly, lacking continuity as they seem to evaporate a run later. But when they show up, they’re hyper bombs I mean down into the 960s and stuff at a latitude that seldom realizes pressures that deep My take on it is that there’s a huge huge non-linear signal there and we’re just waiting on the linearity of the daily wave transport in the models to actually come into phase with it. Anything that does just gets that gigantic kickback and that’s why we’re getting these inconsistencies between nothing and extreme. Regardless of what’s really going on there I don’t really agree that there’s no signal and that it shouldn’t be watched - not saying you are. It’s just my two cents.