Typhoon Tip

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

I have not read the same material that you have read, scene, nor heard, when you speak of "media hype machine." However, the material I have read has actually been more reasonable than the tone your creating here. There has been smoke this thick in NYC at some point in the last 13,000 years ( though why you choose that number to make your point - not sure...), and that is axiomatically true. But that is not the issue or in question, nor have I read any authors describe this one event as being climate change caused... The contexts I have taken in are rightfully focused in the increase in frequency of this phenomenon, at global scales - meaning everywhere on terrestrial surface where fuels can burn, large scaled effusion events have been increasing in occurrence. This is no defense for the "Industrial Media Complex"

That cityscape reminds me of San Francisco in 2020

What's interesting about that plume is that it appears to be completely cut off from the source. There are no more observable smoke 'pointers' up in Canada. Not sure but it looks like its just an aggregate that may be caught in the DVM column along the back side of that cut-off vortex. It's a smoke turd in the punch bowl.

Dude, I’m saying it’s not likely I’m not saying anything else

Still what the GFS is offering is suggestive scaffolding for synergistic heat type … a different animal than just a hot day. The problem is, that’s been happening globally as a real repeating phenomenon, with increased frequency in recent years, where you have a heat modeled … all the sudden you get, something inside that gets out of control. We really have not had one of those in New England yet. It may be that we can’t I don’t know… I’ve been kicking around with the idea that our geography makes it that much more difficult. We’re just not one of the prone areas to that kind of over achieving heat bomb

Heights approaching 600 dm over the western OV and souther GL Hydrostats at or > 582 dm 2-m Ts 97-102 from 300+ hrs is ridic relative to model typology for extended range. I’ve been scoping a warm flux in 13th - 25th time span for some time and there’s indices footing but it doesn’t necessitate the GFS.

GFS again with dangerous heights ... It seems to be hyper responsive to the Pacific transmission over the last couple of runs. I suspect we're changing the pattern approaching the ides, but the GFS appears too amplified... It could correct toward 90% of the ridge, and only 60% of the weird Dakota's wild S/W mechanics, and it'd suffice the hemisphere just fine. Typical of this guidance.

You'll be sitting in a traffic jam in a semi wooded area, while the storm passes by to your NE

Yeah... we may get heat in that time range ...don't know about "big" per se. But sure, the indices give room for that. However, I don't know if we get there by way of this GFS It doesn't seem to matter what time of year, the GFS defaults to too much geopotential gradient. I've yammered about this for years - since around 2015 really. Since NCEP began churning new versions every 15 months, that these next gen global forecast system products have a problem with cumulatively gaining too much negative heights on the polar side of the westerlies. If you compare any other guidance on D10 ish ... some 60 ... 80 percent of the times, the GFS will have a colder medium N of the westerlies' core. That's why it has a progressive bias ... however subtle and/or improving it is ... It ends up with too much gradient = too much balanced geostrophic wind = unsafe wave propagation and bigger R-wave structures. That run at 12z looks like all this to me.

Abstract The sixth assessment report of the IPCC assessed that the Arctic is projected to be on average practically ice-free in September near mid-century under intermediate and high greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, though not under low emissions scenarios, based on simulations from the latest generation Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) models. Here we show, using an attribution analysis approach, that a dominant influence of greenhouse gas increases on Arctic sea ice area is detectable in three observational datasets in all months of the year, but is on average underestimated by CMIP6 models. By scaling models’ sea ice response to greenhouse gases to best match the observed trend in an approach validated in an imperfect model test, we project an ice-free Arctic in September under all scenarios considered. These results emphasize the profound impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the Arctic, and demonstrate the importance of planning for and adapting to a seasonally ice-free Arctic in the near future. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38511-8

Yeah, we did ... It's a matter of frequency? - the latter is accelerated in recent years. I think it takes time to sort out attribution though. I'm not sure I believe articles in mainstream Industrial Media Complex headlining ... that blame the Canadian fires on early heat wave(s) - that might be so, but unfortunately ... recent cultural decades have blown a goodly amount of base-credibility. I haven't seen that in the preprint ambit just yet. Wild fires are part of the natural order. There's bit of an irregular cyclic nature to them. There needs fuels for one. Once a region has burned... it has to refit itself. That takes successive seasons of growth and death cycles. Then, if/when seasonal antecedence sets up the favorable environment... along comes an isolate thunder clap, or PF's low rider souped-up Honda Civic being driven by a 'truly productive member of society' blaring a woofer boomin' rape rap to indifferently grind his chassis on a flinting parking lot surface ... completely oblivious, and the rest is history. There's probably a normalized distribution in time, where a region averages 1 episode for so many years...etc, when not caused by the above asshole turning into a mall for the cannabis dispensary shop... (I'm only cynical on Tuesdays) Anyway ... perhaps CC is causing, relative to region, the cyclic performance to speed up? good question

I've seen the sun down to barely discernible glowing ball from smoke at higher elevation. It was back in 2002 or 2003. I was living in Winchester, and there was a wild fire up in northwestern Quebec, and the smoke plume was narrow but exceptionally dense. It was only like 150 miles wide if that, and pretty much shut the day down to overcast shade.

Seems to be some convection calving going on upstream. Some shear, with quicker mid level flow than the instability axis producing clouds over NE NY/upstate VT, is sending a region SE that appears have been processed a little less choked.

yeah, that makes sense - just a weird situ, like Leary taking an oil lantern to the stable setting after a dry summer, in October, setting it down, and then a cow or horse kicks it over and the next thing you know ...the Great Chicago Fire back in 1871 ( so like, last year - ha). That sucker destroyed 17 thousand buildings along 70 something miles of street. Granted, 1871 proooobably had a firebox construction standard - I don't know... But that does hearken to your point about difficulty visualizing how settings make things more(less) plausible. Have to think outside the box.