Typhoon Tip

Yeah I was getting caught up this morning and didn't see folks posted stuff. That positive anomaly up there appears to be getting more ominous with passing days. It seems the GFS is just slightly too suppressive ( oper.), but if you loop the GGEM (0z) and the GEFs(06z) around the 22nd - Xmas, there is suggestion that some members allow trough mechanics to squeeze underneath that ( I'm not dissuaded by any GFS oper behavior being 'too amplified' with anything in that range as a matter of course) I can't believe I'm about to say this given the forced feeding tube of shit we've intubated with over the last 2 weeks of guidance ... but, when that happens, 2 stream subsume type phasing opportunities enhance. It's not there ( if yet) ... but sending retrograding positive height anomalies N of any region leads to back ground numerical instability of said region. That's just unavoidable. It is what is.

No thanks - I'm crucially that 1 less of 50/50 on ice storms ( that means, 51% against). The aesthetics of them is difficult to deny. However, standing there in a cooling household with no lights, mm. At first it's a fun break from the norm, but the novelty of that fades miserable. Eventually, you might even realize that odor is the back of your balls while there's no hot water.

One of, if not the worst ice storms in SNE history occurred in 1921 from a coastal low - 'coastal low' based upon the re-analysis I've seen/read. Rarer form. This was a doozy. I coastal storm slowly moves passed while a high pressure worked across QUE, like Will was describing ... sending a whopper ageo cold momentum under the synoptic layout. And it really is 'under' in the literal sense. The lowest 2400' of the atmosphere uncouples from the larger synopsis in extreme cases. All ice storms have this in common. You end up with two distinct events in the total tropospheric depth ( fascinating really - ). The one on top is a warm anomaly that has no interest or physical means to even intermingle, whatsoever for the fact that the floor of the scenario ends up physically disconnected entirely. It's like blithe destruction HAHA So imagine a water loaded wet Nor'easter, with 31/24 under air mass fully back loaded with all of eastern Canada to spare .. just flowing in for its own reasons, UNDERNEATH wind swept CCB rain. It's also rare for coastal storms to product icing, as more typically the CCB is better integrated. It is after all a "COLD" Convery Belt - that's what CCB means. And cold tends to take the lowest path. But in this case, the undercut QUEian air was colder than the CCB, so the CCB was most likely arriving along an elevated surface. Again ...the 1923 horror ice was a two event scenario that happens to coincide in timing. I'm not saying early next week is that ( LOL...) but it strikes me as similar in that there is a bit of a vestigial CCB there that appears to be lifted off the deck by a cold feed.

Agreed guys ... Thing is, the high pressure's been playing catch-up in the guidance ( all of them/sources) for a week. It only seems to keep losing the race, but still getting closer as the dates click off and the time nears. Closing the gap in the d(model) I'm not sure the entire tapestry for that thing doesn't change here as we shorten the middle range, either. There were a couple of sneaky runs/outside the consensus per over the last few days, that did send more N/stream tucking into the back side of the tortured Mill-A cyclone as it was sputtering up the coast. The idea here is that with guidance lacking continuity and being a bit vagarious anyway, there are forecasting headache possibilities still in play. Also ( I realize I've been snarky and making fun of shit lately but searching for objectivity here ) I'm not completely sold that we won't break more 'holiday spirit' as we head past the 21st ... There are several GGEM and GEFs members sending a trough under a positive height/retrograding in central Canada. It's too far west of the NAO, and too far east of the EPO, to be picked up by either telecon numerics but it's there nonetheless. Those features are tricky ... Should some S/W mechanics squirt underneath things go from mundane to track-able. While all this is happening we appear to average marginal with wild card modest BN air masses near by during these periods outlined - the first of which being the approach of the high pressure early next week.

I got my dates screwed up ...Friday's that day. Sorry bro. Saturday doesn't look bad either, just maybe not as mild.

I was even thinking low 60s on Saturday if using the Euro surface/lower trop. synopsis. I think we can plain-jane that and go with near full sun, down-slope/kad. flow type under 850s between +8 and +11 C. Granted the sun is tepid, but the mechanics there with the compressional aspects is going to compensate - speculative predicated on these Euro metrics playing out that way. EDIT: Friday above... my bad

Ha! Nah I just think if we actually had something worthwhile to redirect our attention. It might bleed a little bit more interest back into this engagement. Ive just grown tired of the seasonal outlooks and weeklies … and extended this and that … kicking cans. It just gets exhausting.

I think I've just about had enough of a seasonal outlooks this and weeklies that

Relative to present era modeling standards .. the differences between the fab three with the handling of the N/stream, from south of Alaska to the Maritime of Canada, is quite anomalously poor

I wouldn't be surprised ... I put it at 50/50: minoring out vs majoring in The problem is we have two 'unmanned firehoses' in the guidance. The southern stream has very little continuity with details, while the N stream is occasionally dumping some phase in at irregular amounts across successive runs. Between those two flopping hoses we are stuck in a realm of utter "misguidance"

heh, so far we've seen just about every plausible rendition of what that thing early next week will mean for the area without any one version repeating across successive model runs.

I'm seeing something else going on here, though. hmm

I know LOL ... the varied solutions are mind boggling, huh.

Just look at Decembers going all the way back. I don't think one's going to find many 20+ snow inland with land-deforming ocean-pummeling on the coast, in that month, too often. There's also an "experiential relativity" that is connected to modeling performance, too. 1992 was on the cusp of more refined generation of new tools, but not yet. It would really take another 10 years or so. So ... not only was the empirical size and power of that event rare against history, it still happened in a time when shock was still of a possibility to occur. One could even argue ... it is perhaps even more so a jolt to reality to be led along by a busting forecast portrait conveyed by 1980s and '90s weather-related graphic. Sometimes it is better to just be always on alert, like prior generations. When we are soaked for days with the specter of modeling illustrations pointing to a macabre bomb, ... by the time the storm in question happens, we don't get that shock and awe factor - memories are designed accordingly. You may ( or not.. ) recall in that 'docu-drama' story I wrote for the forum years ago that portrait the the 1992 storm experience while up in college, the first "chapter" involved sitting in a class with a fellow Met student. The scene was just prior to an inCREdibly boring session of Hist of American Lit 102; an elective for her, as I was only temporarily a Liberal Arts major so to beef up my prerequisites. Before the consummately late professor arrived gave the opportunity ... she said, "We were just up gathered in the Weather Lab. We're not so sure about rain vs snow" That was some 3 days before the event. That was just 72 hours prior, and forecasts for our local area was still a heavy, wind driven rainy Nor'easter. Yeah, okay ... that ultimately was a night off the streets. Who cares. It was Dec in our climate. 17.5" of snow, the top 2/3rds of which was pulverized wind driven fin-drifted powder, later, definitely made that forecast shockingly bad. It was a giNORmous positive debacle of a bust. To be fair, we did get probably 2.5" of cold big drop ( probably there were cat paws embedded by 2 or 3 pm the afternoon before the snow wall shock transition swept over the campus later that evening) first. SO yeah... it did heavy rain for awhile. We weren't considering snow at all, I know that much. Credit to the technology arm of today's Meteorological enterprise: It is very difficult to get a storm as big as that, under the awareness radar, since probably ...I wanna say 2005?

We had 17.5" up at UML fwiw -

Fox. 7th

They're not citing reasons why in a lot of cases - at least when I read those posts and or tweets etc... It seems they are really just hand waving and giving into persistence. It has it's value ... until it doesn't. But it hides not really having any special insight that transcends anyone else that dares venture outside the safety of both persistence, but who isn't just being a neg-head.

Warm intrusions happen frequently. Semantics but "sudden" stratospheric warming could apply to any of those. The difference is in whether or not they are of sufficient mass and even more so, whether they are down welling. When a warm region comes into detection, there's a fairly large consortium of social media personalities and Mets alike that don't make it abundantly clear they know the difference, because they immediately rush out the alarms. ...not sure why I'm telling you this... just ranting I guess. Anyway, here's the difference between the two. Top are static warm intrusions. Bottom is a pig down weller.

Perhaps ... Kind of hard to separate the two from this range, though. Considering that SSW's are correlated more so with -QBOs anyway -

It's like the models, having unwittingly been engineered with climate tendencies prior to the 'hockey stick' era of global warming, are constantly 'realizing' the predicament and making adjustments- gives the allusion to kicking the winter can

On this date, 31 years ago ... I witnessed an usual occurrence from my dormitory attending college at UML. It was during the 1992 Nor'easter, a top 3 all time personal storm experience favorite. Ironically .. while skulking around Youtube over lunch today, I happened across this random video from (apparently) State College, PA. At first I thought how much that reminds me of ...'wait!' That was today! - felt as though I was meant to remember. It's just a snow squall ...but the speed in which the heavy snow column took over the scenery is remarkably similar to what I observed that faithful night of the 11th. Only, the interface I witnessed was not a transition from clear air to snow... it was wind driven heavy sheets of cold rain, demarcated by a single massive flash of lightning and the report, just prior to the flash over from silvery night right to dimly orbed street lamps through whirling snow. I watched as the sky transformed, transfixed, as I wasn't entirely certain what it was in fact I was seeing. I'd seen squalls do this... not during Nor'easters. The next dawn we awoke to 17"

From my years of experience this appears to be the best/first evidence of a SSW burst and probably down-welling event for this 2023/late December: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/

Really ... I was under the impression that some metrics just traded places more so. I think plateaued is fair enough - it may have giga moved above(below) but hasn't significantly enough to matter. Particularly not with RONI being real whether people want to admit it or understand it or not

We were just model magnified ...that's what happened. 10 to as much as 60% of most systems on any given D9 plot ...if they happen at all, should be mandatory scalp off the top of whatever magnitude the system is depicted at that range. Been saying this for the last 5 years. Particularly true in the GFS family -

I little bit coarse but ...CPC's animation below appears to introduce an abrupt weakening at least in the surface temperature trends at the tale end of the animation -