Typhoon Tip

The FOUS numbers are tamed by 4 or 5 kts. LGA went from 41 to 33, actually ...

Looks like it adjusted the track E some.

The old school FOUS grid keeps warming the T1 level temperature. This 18z run did so again and also drives 562 hydrostats to LGA-BOS. Instability may become more instrumental for this system as those numbers reflect a more barotropic sounding - ie not as protected by smeared warm frontal inversion like is typical. Cleaner momentum in the Z coordinate … There’s a wind bomb with our address on it - who knows if this system is the delivery but this wind signal is more impressive to me at least per these coarse synoptic indicators.

Hey Will, ha! I just got done head scratching about the lack of injects into the domain between the 23rd and 28th and then this 18z GFS comes out... Not saying these are producing - haven't even looked at the corresponding surface but this and like this is numerically supported prior to the 28th. So we'll see. From this range it's more important to see activity that syncs with signals.

Agreed ... I've posted about the 28-31st part of that time range over the last couple of days. The thing is, from a pure numeric value something could emerge between the 23rd and 28th but damn if the models refuse to actual inject anything into the domain during that time frame. Almost of a head scratch given the degree of the d(PNA), really. I'm willing to not bitch about it though because I'm seeing an oddly split hemisphere, with a 'relaxed' flow +PNA tendency happening beneath a frenzied higher latitude fast energetic polar jet and the two are seldom in sync... I believe the lower latitude mass-field distribution is modulating the PNA more so than the higher lat neg interference so causing a miss-leading layout.

Thought the Euro looked impressive. 925 mb wind of 70kts arriving normal to the south coast

That's one ugly series of dailies between D6 and 10 on that run. ho man -

Philosophy aside ... I suspect that this weirdly fast hemisphere is related to CC having an impact on the base-line geostrophic mean velocities. There have recently been papers published. They indirectly if not directly corroborate what we've ( well...certainly I - ) have been at least anecdotally observing about the pattern behaviors over the past 10 years. I think in more practical terms, it is having an impact of "pattern dependency" in deterministic (forecasting) efforts. Particularly in the mid and extended ranges; ironically, where there should be less "expectation" for stability, ha. But ... it's been worse than that.

It may be required, truth is what ultimately sets us all free. Folks may need to admit the climate's changed, simply put. I like the Buddha core tenet. May be over simplifying ... certainly do not mean to offend if I am butchering, but from what I gather: All evil's fruits of the entire world including the realities we suffer, pain, sorrow and anguish, they only happen because they were grown from expectation. Reality is a torture chamber of hurt expectation. This observation, where we are observing mid latitudes with increasing cold air challenges, might not just be a nuance of the local decadal sample size. 50 years ago, mm less problem with the arithmetic of that thinking. All available data of that era that created the most objective reality was a stabler climate - which leaves the causality of year to year idiosyncrasies open other variability within the system. No problem. That is not the case any longer, because it CANNOT be the case any longer. All the available data about the present era that creates the best objective reality is that the climate is NOT stable. It's probably more for psycho-babble, but I sense two camps of CC acceptance have evolved. One is easy. It is flat out it's happening ...everyone is fucked. The other is a "softer acceptance." This latter group will say on one hand that the climate has(is) changed(ing), but on the other ... attempt to qualify it - which is ultimately a divisive tact ( bit of a strong word but it is designed to fracture confidence, nonetheless). "It'll take decades before that happens", "not in our life times", "it's not causing storms to do this - it doesn't work that way", and on and so on. This is called rationalization in psych. And the clever strategy about these arguments is that they cannot really be refuted within the time span of the given scenario. Whatever the scenario was, it is long gone into history before x-y-z can be proven. To label the obvious, they create a comfort space that succeeds in evading truer acceptance- preserving the expectation bias.

They did at one time… It’s enough to cause some pause there. Not impossible. It’s coming into the North American sounding grid which is usually when the performance would improve with the NAM in theory. ICON poking the hornets nest at 72 hrs. We’ll see where the desperate go

I beat him. Lol NAM has a sensitivity bias with coastals. Just sayn’

It’s buckin for the spin up off the Nstream tuck

Not saying it’s happening that way but I like the GFS dry slot making it all the way to central NE from a low starting in the eastern Gulf o Mex That my friends is a weather pattern hell-bent … 60 in that region btw.

Lol at Tiger trying to invent an emotional space because the weather is so bad already there’s nothing otherwise left to troll. Awesome. It’s like Earth itself is trolling winter

If we start getting bombs only hitting the cape I’m blaming you -

What was the frequency in the 25-31 period. My question was more around "repeater" ... You know? Like there seems like there's a storm on the charts ever 3 years Feb 2-10 for example. Another one is Mar 9 -15 ... Dec 1-7 ... I'm sure there's been a storm on every date if we go back far enough. It's just for muse but it didn't seem it. I wasn't terribly cognizant of the world at in 1976 yet. haha

20 or as little as 10 years from now ... perhaps even looking back and saying, "actually, that ship had already sailed by then"

You almost get the feeling eventually there will be a 950 mb low actually on the map yet ... because we've been so conditioned to getting royally porked that we'd be saying, "features seem to be in a good position"

I bet it's January 17. that one's suspect as the Meg date

Yeah. But I was thinking more big cahoona. Ha, I suspect there's been a little critter biting at the ankles of every date. I wonder .. hm, what hapless p.o.s. flogged date out of the entire NDJFM five months owns the singular distinction as the lowest storm frequency out of all of them.

I don't think that's a climate repeater date, Dec 30 I can't recall very specifically but I don't think there's been very many siggy winter events in that run up to January 1. The mention of the last week of Jan '93 got me wondering if that was rare back whence. I mean it's been now 30 years since 1993 and have we had a sig system on 28-29-30?

I'm probably just a jaded lover of winter modeling affairs here but for some reason, just a 990 mb low as a result, underneath all that, is somehow more encouraging at this point ...

Not by much... but more crucial, the wind balanced g-wind velocities are 35 kts or < That latter aspect speaks to the 'compressibility' of the flow - which may be a sloppy way to describe whether the gradient speeds up as the S/W approaches, to a state that is too fast and shearing/absorption begins to rob from the total wave mechanics. It was always the combination of those two metrics: 582 and balanced geostrophic wind at or < 32 kts. But we can play with that. I mean, if the heights are 586 ( say ) but the gap between the isopleths is large and velocities are light, than as the S/W/intermediate wave space trough approaches the SE in general ... less in the way of absorption ensues. Contrasting, if the heights are 576 but the wind is already up around 50 kts, than that's negative too.

This looks El Nino-esque too me. Nice rollin' S/stream, loaded with wave mechanics, and a vestigial N/stream across E/SE Canada.

Meanwhile ... https://phys.org/news/2023-12-coal-earth-hottest-year.html