Typhoon Tip

Last week's worth of MJO is collapsing ... The models likely to have been proven too aggressive. So if all that is true ... heh, it certainly hasn't begun to help just yet.

SPC expanded the marginal region

I'm curious if we bubble up some better deep layer TCU with that slow moving mid level cool pool eroding from the west over top more humidity and warming surface heating potential.

Yeah... this week won't be like last week. Whether we want to hold back in our choices for description, the straight up synoptic parameters and the overall evolution/cinema of it, don't provide the same result. In other words, different pattern. That thing last week is over. We'll see where this goes... I think approaching the 20th ...more substantive heat is on the table. It'll take some correcting and/or emerging into future guidance. Fwiw - the D9 Euro went hot over the vastness of the contiguous interior.

The machine/MEX numbers were better for summer enthusiasts. But, I know what you mean if looking over the 500 mb cinema. It's easy to roll eyes and give up. Lol Then I checked MOS for shits and gigs and huh, KBDL/KFIT/KASH/KBED were all at or above normal through D5 ..6. I thought looking at the charts beyond, the models ( ECM, GFS.. not the GGEM) might be finally 'detecting' the Pacific forcing. The GFS has occasionally signaled detection, but the continuity hasn't been there and it collapse(d) back to the same perforated 500 mb look. The 00z Euro and GFS' run cycle was the first where the two were in unison trying to raise heights and 850 mb thermal medium post D7. So we'll see where that emerges.

There is a class of users that are directly or indirectly engaging in this social media. That is the target of most of my contribution and you’re not in that particular group.

This isn't up to date, and the looping coarseness comes off as a rather cartoony ... but, the CPC is/was indicating a modest anomaly beginning to creep west from the near Peruvian shore heat

That's it then - no other reason. Lol Mmm ... one can come up with a multitude of scenarios that are well-within the realm of possible validity for why/how CC affects a given region's natural cycles. Adding more lightning wouldn't be the whole story - it's just a trigger. Again, not saying you per se... but there's a tendency to conflate triggers with attribution like out there in society/ambit. Just use the "reasonable imagination" ... semi-permanent CC-attributed pattern fosters greater growth over an extended period ... then extended dry or cross-seasonal circumstance occurs ... the given region is made to be tinder dry with over-budget fuels. Then, yeah, lightning occurs, and could be made more prolific because of an attributable anomaly in its own right --> the whole thing produces an unusually large effusion event. The problem with dismissing this as mere lots of lightning is it misses all the connections in the broader spectrum of contributing factors. The example above was imagined, but it's contributing players are/is within the scope of possibility.

Humans have always been stupid ... ... mixing human stupidity with background climate change - wherein there is an abundance of circumstances that would allow fire storms ( suppose this latter is the case for a moment ), I'm not sure that frees up CC as attributable. Removing human stupidity from that climate-made tinder box environment, does not remove CC from attribution in my mind... It's there whether the agency of stupidity wonders into that region to celebrate penis and or vagina, or is smarter than that ( and according to the post-modern new scripture, it's possible that the "and" and the "or" can occupy the same space). Anyway, if climate change makes a tinder box out of an environment, ... I think there is a difference and distinction that needs to be made between what is a "trigger" and what is "attribution" ...Because the stupid human trigger can't trigger, if the CC attribution part were not in place.

Right... Bit of a longer op ed ....that's question 1 in this smoke out as needing 'attribution' science - the new frontier of Climatology. There seems to be an increasing necessity to parse out whether events deemed unusual are climate change -related, vs not part of climate change/normal back-ground noise. There's a lot of complexity in doing so, more or less depending on the facet in analysis. I can imagine ... since wild-fires have been a part of geology for 700,000,000 years ... that may be easily dismissed as just being background noise. But... hehhhh that evil word 'frequency' The fact that large effusion -resulting events have been occurring with apparent increased frequency, world over ... Australia, to California, to Canada, to Siberia ... Sorry for the maudlin interruption, but if I were say ... writing a Sci-fi about the seven phases of "Gaia's eradication apocalypse", I might just start with series of fire storms that con the vermin into thinking they are just part of the natural order. Dark humor there... Anyway, dry weather relationship with thunderstorms has been an affair surviving every Earth epoch, going back since vegetation garnished the surface of the planet, 700,000,000 years Variations in the frequency of either reveals how hot that relationship ever got - pun intended: ...mm, that's what gets a little more complex. Since the lowest common denominator is that there will always be that relationship between dry weather thunder, fuels, and subsequent fires, the question is thus deferred to what drives the frequency of both of those factors - obviously ... getting them to canvas the landscape at the same time is the whole camp site ... Just as an intuitive/speculation, this year set up unusual blocking near 110 W over Canada could be related to that continental folding/spring hyper block tendency that's become more frequently observable in the last 10 years. Also, it's been a number of years since we observed Canadian wild fires - that tends to argue for lots of fuel stows... The problem with these attribute sciences - for me - is how do the "calculations" determine variables that necessarily go into the evaluation? Are the fuels stow abundance related to climate change? Then, is or is not the dry ridge pattern after a dry winter, part of climate change? Then, said dry ridge building toward +3 or +4 SD lower tropospheric thermal over-budget in the immediate weeks leading the triggering thunder event ... is that climate change -related? I dunno. There must be some form of 'geo-physical' mathematics that is used in the evaluation. For now, I suspect the larger, orbital perspective of "frequency" and unilateral terrestrial environment inclusion in the event spread, are pretty damningly suspect.

This was the analysis I was looking for last week when I was being sarcastic about deviant Canadian red-necks armed with gas cans.. haha. But yeah ... seems clad -

The problem with the PDO relationship with the < 20N "might" be in an interference pattern caused by the impressive -GLAAM. The atmospheric momentum stuff is clearly ... abusively negative right now ( bit of sarcasm...) Without even seeing the graphs - just look at all these shortened wave lengths with deep perforated nadirs spinning around. We are entering a general teleconnection mode featuring -PNA/neutralizing AO with a modestly postive EPO... But the snake in the grass about the -GLAAM is that the R-wave coherency gets distorted. With it ...the correlations don't realize as well. That is why we are seeing a -PNA/neutral AO/modestly positive EPO yet no appreciable heat wave ridging ... The GFS has been trying to do so ( the operational version..) about every 3rd of 4th cycle, before failing continuity and collapsing back into these bowling ball lows and severed ridge nodes look. The point of that paragraph is to exemplify how an operational forecasting suffers during -GLAAMs. In the same vein, it's not likely - to me - that a correlation between PDO and ENSO would work too well for the time being... And a more analytic reason there is because the PDO is susceptible to sea-surface stressing/wind pattern bias, and those can be imparted by these short-wave scale spatial-temporal dimensions. The broader correlations work better - inherently during +GLAAM, which we definitely do not have that advantage now. It may also be related to why the MJO wave is robustly transmitted out of the Marine subcontinent over the next two weeks, without the canonical warm N/A pattern pass/pulsation ( as is presently modeled..). Basically, ... we suffer a planetary -scale negative interference pattern.

Certainly enough to give pause... That first bold is the 65 million $ question. That's the winter. 2nd bold, as Bluewave and I have been pointing out, the states of the ENSO's no longer seem to act as independently in forcing as they did prior climate generations - in fact, at times in recent years, being almost completely decoupled from the hemispheric circulation mode. Not all the time, again... increasingly observed in winters since 1998. Particularly the 2015-2016 warm ENSO. When the anomalies are calculated, I don't believe they are deferential to the d(gp). I believe the integral is more important than anomaly itself. This recent year the -ENSO was coupled better - but it was also nuanced. We began suspecting the ENSO dispersion mechanics might be altering about 8 years ago, noting the gradients were becoming odd. Personal op-ed: In the atmosphere, setting air-land speed records on cross oceanic flights ( west --> east) approaching sonic speeds is happening because the air craft are caught up in unusually strong basal flow rates around planet. 230 kt winds and 350 kt thrust to maintain lift above the 500 mb level... That is the mid cold season Hadley cell having converted spatial dimension into mechanical power in form of wind, which is suggestive by counting the isopleths on the 500 mb sfc ... There's like 15, between S/W now - regardless of ENSO warm(cool) phase. It's indicative of the tropical swelling then being compressed by boreal seasonaility in the cold season.

I'm pretty sure "GIStemp" is right around 98.6 degrees - what am I missing?

Not sure I'm jiving with any distinction of ENSO warm biases, to date, when the whole "oceanasphere" is still recovering from a +1.5C spring spike ...

A little later than needed, don't cha think - Their gonna have 50 mi vis in soul-satisfying deep breathing air by then.

HA, was just looking at that

course I wonder, are we thus gonna touch off some good old fashioned severe New England convection in the form of a violent 25 mph outflow, a single pop CG, and ping sound that you're quite sure is hail or not?

Heh... wasn't honestly expecting this today. It's gone partly cloudy, with like 5 to 10 minute intervals between lighter clouds and sunny sky lights. Satellite confirms this is no accident of randomness where you get a weird split that closes right away. The general cloud sheen has abruptly gone corpuscular .. more cumulo-formed at a regional scale. Temp bounced to 64 when that happened, after being stalled at 58 all morning. If this keeps up we may touch 70

Hopefully the Sup' or Principle or whomever runs you're school ... calls you in and says you've been elected for summer school duties. hahaha

Yeah, I was just looking back... 6 days now since that unusual S/W plunked due south to end last weeks early heat (folks may forget, but this thing corrected two days of 86-93 in the region). It's been peregrinations within that theme ever since. I was musing that this was the canonical April cut-off happening in the first week of June.

It is, it's perfect for outdoor manuals ... Car's in the shop because of all things, the hood release cable apparently snapped - so can't access the motor...blah blah. Dropped it off at the garage and huffed it home ...about a 1.25 mile distance. It was a 58 with light rain, and by the time I made it back ... I was starting to get warm under the collar. I go for runs outside anyway ... but 58 to 62 is a nice temperature for it. I wouldn't wanna sit down and do nothing .... yeah, that'd get chilly given time, but if you need to do physical anything at all, this weather is really wonderful for that.

again... sporadic GFS runs with more ridging/heat signaled into the Lakes/ N OV, regardless of continuity .. could be an operational nod from the particularly source. With there were no background signal - which there is - than it would be easier dismissable as noise

what's interesting is that the ULLs are the same dimensions in terms of depth ... but they are situated higher in the g-potential medium? Like we're cutting off 568 dm cores and the models are trying to generate misery underneath those more common with the 546 to 552, and they are really up there in altitude. I've even seen 580's perforating ridges ( which, ridging in the sense of R-waves are rarefied which may be a function of a lower AAM.. not sure) ...like it's like anything imaginable the models can manufacture to limit heat potential. Lol. But in reality, it's the Pacific controlling all this shit. It's the linear and non-linear wave function/dispersion down stream of the Pacific. Which is odd, because - as I've been bloviating about recently haha I know - that signal really should be setting up a better ridge between 100 and 80 W than we have seen very much willingness in the operational guidance. The 0z complexion overall was the worst decoupling look yet. Thing is ( I'm just speaking to the average reader here at this piont..) the summer index correlation to the pattern is obviously less statistically significant. This is particularly true in the PNA. So there may be some of that in why the operational runs are not responding. But if we look at mid latitudes between the Dateline and the west coast of N/A, ... compare now vs 144, the mass-field is completely reversed. Yet the flow downstream over the N/A continent appears to withstand that without moving toward the preferred west trough east ridge couplet.

The indexes indicate far E. Pac/near western coastal N/A ridge response. The recent ensemble means of all three majors, EPS/GEPS/GEFS, have begun (in the virtual sense) physically realizing this change between 120 and 180 hours. The coupled response would be to lower heights over western N/A, subsequently sending up a ridge response in the east. The operational models do not reflect these changes. In fact, even among these ensemble means, the response down stream is vague(r) than one would expect. But, particularly true in the operational runs, the downstream flow over interior/eastern limb of the continent, seems to be all but entirely ignoring this forcing and remaining uncoupled. That incongruence has been ongoing for five days (~) as far as I can recall - the GFS has shown an occasional run attempting to break toward the above correlation, but has failed to maintain. They are going to be consistently wrong. Or, they are going to be consistently right that this is some oddity where classical atmospheric wave mechanics are not going to be satisfied. I'd suggest some of the GFS runs that did show more ridging ...only to collapse back on the next cycle or two, might be more indicative