Typhoon Tip

I've heard the year 2018 bandied about ... I recall that year as being like that. We had huge -NAO in the midriff up there, and the modeled behavior was retro toward eastern Canada. We heralded it in with a big nor-easter in early March that was cat paws or cold rain... Really infuriating system. It was the one where collectively, the entire Met community knew about the ( at the time ) bias of the GFS for BL wet bulb thermodynamics... How that got through beta and released into operation was always a dog of a head scratch but it was what it was... So, it had a mid range, 38/29 QPF of 3" rain storm, and many of us thought it was going to be end up a blue bomb 33/33... assuming it wasn't properly saturating - which is wasn't. It was modeled replete with a comma head, CCB everything. Nope. 37/37 rain. I mean... wtf!? The GFS got to be wrong while still boning us... how d'ya do that? wow. The retro wasn't why the GFS bias screwed us... But the storm took a weird track.. it collapsed SE as it left into the Atlantic. I think that played a role, because it didn't allow for more cold to entrain into the circulation.. It was all good.. because less than a week later we were tracking a the real deal blue and I'm pretty sure the NAO was in fact starting to normalize a bit by then...

Improving...

mm... I know we've been over this so often the earth is now packed into concrete but I really don't want a big west based elephant ass. Not accusing you of doing so, but the jest tends to ensue a following of posts where people love the big 500 mb magenta, chart edging blob over D. Straight and I cannot underscore enough, that is not really what you want if you want ... E19 ( see above post)... Particularly if the -PNA/ southern warm wall isn't going away - which I don't suspect it is... It's anchored by 3 years of Nina momentum and more intangible angst than Sleepy Hollow. In fact, if the elephant sits on our trampoline height field, it may look like the southern warm wall is in abeyance but that would be an allusion - a lie betrayed by the fact that the wind between Denver and NS will be 120 kts as a base state velocity. It's trading altitude for speed... destructive interference Wrong... no E19 for you, ONE YEAR!

well... circumstantially, that would be true, ...but I'm speaking of 'farmer john's standard correction' for modeling at 120+hr range. I have not seen any graphics that out right compare empirical results to model prognostic values, relative to any time leads... but, anecdotally, I get a very strong impression that the error tends to increase in the ^ amts, farther out in time. I've been jokingly referring to this as 'model magnification' I think of it as when an system first appears at the outer boundary of the model distant times... it's like the moon coming over the horizon on the clear dusty summer evening. It's the size of a pie pan... - fun metaphor. But I think it's because the models don't "see" or detect the physical offsetting destructive interference minutia that are inevitably going to materialize, due to the fact that ultimately ...they don't really predict the future. Those emergent offsets cannot be predetermined - until the human brain trust finally does figure out how quantum mechanics identifies future events... But by then? they'll be controlling that space and along with it, how those events unfolds. Technologies like "the Weather Modification Net" ... and this sort of speculation will have long been a thing of the past. Rain and snow and temperature variance all happening by a carefully prescribed dosing by the technology. No more interesting anything - ... sign me up! Excluding that wild science fiction digression... what the models are left with in the D6 on range is a like 'purified' emergence that isn't being held back by "reality" at those time ranges.

Seems like you're standing in line sneak 'n' txting ... It may be tedious to mention still at 120+ range, but both the GFS and GGEM were a deg or two colder in the llv/wedging air mass. I also - personally - find it hard to believe that a 1030+mb robust +PP situated over W QUE, already dammed into the region prior to arrival of WAA burst ..., will ever yield at the sfc. It may be one of those scenarios where the lift escapes and runs off the region exposing a llv 900 to sfc icy layer. Skies brighten... but don't really clear. Rad looks like the warm front must've made it all the way to RUT-PWM or so... but it's really down along the L.I. S or even south of there. In general, I see two aspects evolving this week: 1 ... more suppression ( how much or little notwithstanding). 2 ... lower overall verification over present QPF ( again, how much or little - ).

Trying..

Spaced that close together in time, amid a ripping velocity saturated shear pattern? Nope - ...can't call those "storms" There's not enough time for all required synoptic parametric ingredients to situate in between. In fact, that kind of minuscule temporal-spacial layout is more indicative of how a fast large scale pattern type is intrinsically a negative interference against any embedded smaller scale disturbances (where/how 'storms' form).. Anyway, the former is just semantics rant ( haha) where because those would be physically challenged/limited in what they can be, 'minoring events' is more apropos. When we say "threat" and "storm" at any passing dent in the curvature of the field, and ( likely...) merely a magnified result perpetrated by the modeling cinema out in time..., then, bounce adjectives of the like back in forth in the colloquialism of the group physics, the group synoptic impression ends up stranded up a on a ledge where the only way down to reality is at 9.8 m/s-squared!

Yeah they just installed their sensor yesterday.

Sunday nape factor of 9

Ha 'cept, I don't think anyone remotely cogent has proclaimed aspects as looking encouragingly snowy, or whatever. What was said by many is that patterning may improve - folks tend to do that... They hit hyper drive on that kind of thing, then it turns into a d-drip let down when the 'odds' don't play out. And it's annoying too, because they construct their memories around that accelerated interpretation.. Anyway, the pattern this next week is actually horrible for snow. It is... Let's get that straight. What we have, or is modeled rather ..., is a PV anomaly setting over top said horrible pattern. That changes the landscape a little, and what we're seeing in the operational runs is tug-o-war along the axis between those two titanic forces. Subtle oscillations N or S scaffolds where confluence will build sfc high... as well as guide alone where that wind torpedo rides over the ridge... Typically we don't really talk snow when a S/W curves west of ORD ...rides along the border, then cuts ESE through central NE - that's the S/W trajectory in the means wrt to late next week... It's all about where the slope of cold wedge ends up in the lower troposphere... Very precarious. Yeah...that is a giant hunk of shit pattern actually... It just happens to be one that is setting up a polished option... Probably? it's more like to be an IP/ice event with a narrow stripe of snow astride... But, I also wonder if the S/W is also going to start showing up weaker in future guidance - the old magnification correction.

Heh... if you're chasing winters... might wanna take note of the climate migration trend and rate of change before committing to a 20 year mortgage. Get all signed on the dotted lines and lubed up and excited for winters like this ? ooh sign us up

hm... i remember a system like this one ( modeled) much earlier this cold season... It started out cold, and then trended N ... then, came back S colder - similar time ranges. But then ended up N in the end anyway. It really - from what I am seeing - is coming down to the PV position and how it integrates with the surrounding hemisphere toward the end of the week. If it and the integral is further N, the boundary and the rippling wave conduit ends up between Flint and western ME ...if it's all S by almost imperceptible amounts, it's an IND-NYC axis. This is may wobble up and down for several days ...

That is an exceptional H.A. event look. However, considering the range, there's limited real deterministic value. But if that were say a 180 hours, we'd have an early thread with 20 pages in 5 minutes for a blockbuster "potential".

As though this were late March ... huge bust potential late next week. The 00z Euro and GFS on either side of the low level cold wedge - although the GFS' attempt at a meso low in the bay (00z) is at least a nod to the notion of some damming... Those two solutions for that mess are pretty wildly disparate over all. Then the 06z GFS comes out with a southward correction ...not quite as far as the Euro's ice storm implication ( with 2" of IP from RUT to MHT), but significant enough to consider... Very complex scenario unfolds where you have two higher confidence major factors controlling, but the type of weather that occurs between them is compressed into a very narrow conduit separate their two different worlds. Those two features are the SPV that's over James Bay ( down to 480 dm!), and the -PNA(SE ridge). They're leaning on each other and imperceptible oscillations in that sumo shoving match means 61 F or 31F across maybe 70 mi, from N OH to S NH as a mean axis between the Euro and GFS ( blended guess). There are competing 'correction vectors' in this...but I still tend to lean colder due to many decades of experiencing late winter and spring cold loading across SE Canada. I don't have formal numbers but a pig load of experience ...the cold wins ( usually..). I was mentioning to John last night that I suspected the 12z Euro solution yesterday was about as far N as this mess could ultimately get before being forced east. The PV acts like an inverted block.. The 00z coming in suppressed seems to odd in favor of cold winning. If the ridge needs to win out that much...it's less likely to mean big snow event up the St Lar...and more likely to mean this shears to lower impact in general... Cold winning doesn't have to mean snow/mix/ice..., but I'm not sure I'm buying 60 intrusion to ALB like some of the recent cycles of the GFS was selling..

Nah... I'd really rather it ends

1888

Something I've noticed over the years of deterministic guidance efforts, particularly as it relates to arriving warmth ... that tends to happen surprisingly often. There'll be a day out in the late mid range in spring and summer that looks like it may really roast... Then as the time years, somehow its the day before that is the warmest, while the day that was supposed to roast originally ... just seems to invent reasons not to be as hot as it could be. Clouds...BDs ... systems just speeding up in timing...etc. Here we are in a Feb warm departure and there it is - boom

Yup Im impressed by general thermal gradient between S Canada and TV in the means. Man that’s gonna bottle rocket systems thru. It is also unfortunately true that the ridge could continue to correct and push the jet N.

We probably have to deal with another W-E running needle thread episode 4 days later, too. Tough shit. It either sets up axis favorably, or not -

I strongly - personally - believe we'd find this owes to the velocity soaking of the hemisphere... because the polar regions are still substantively deep enough in heights that when the background, however albeit modestly the subtropical 'kiss' latitudes term out into the westerlies ...stay elevated ...even if by a mere 3 to 6 dm would likely be enough to integrate and express the balanced geos wind potential. That is causing large wave space behavior morphology... We just ( likely...) happened to be in a precisely the wrong traffic aspect wrt to semi -fixed positioning... ...And yeah, I agree that a well-coupled ENSO Nino ...even alleviation of the NINA ... would lend to moving that fixation into a different mode

wow... huh? that's nuts.

yeah... plug pulled over here, too... I feel partially responsible for bringing that period of time to light, as I was first to mention we should monitor it as far as I know of - about 5 days ago or whenever that was. The problem is, there is a tendency to conflate the mere philosophy discussion of what is out there in both the models, but also what could emerge in time ... etc, with an actual forecast. Those two are two different things. I mean, do people think NWS employees sit around between model runs and communicate like text off a weather bureau telegraph .. no they hash shit out. What needs to happens here, take away there, and the plausibility of those aspects taking place...etc..etc... I guess shut down the site until it's actually snowing out ...but then, the users aren't getting their d-drip dosing, are they heh. Anyway, the period has storminess rippling through the flow, and right now it's too far N. it is what it is... but the signal recognition was on point. Having said all that... I was also careful to point out all along that the there's no real telecon support for it. It was a 'sub-index' scaled recognition effort. The scatter plotting has been immensely peppered all over hell's creation, probably owning to not having that indexing. We're probably something like 'lucky' to have any cold air situated like this... and unfortunately, we cannot ignore it, either.

Yeah...but how much or how little. Right, 64 million dollar question. Whomever answers that with resounding truism ... actually, probably winds up with Hoffa by big oil's tentacles of subsidiary interest groups... heh. Anyway, Scott's right - ...these patterns, 2 or whatever hundred years ago would torch too - but to me, that's not the issue. What is, is the frequency and return rate. We keep getting hung up in the scalar gaped-jaw factor, and trying to offset the specter of the thing by way of this mantra, 'this has happened before' That is not considering the most important aspect: it should not be happening so frequently. Nor should the record blasting recurring heat in NW-N Euro... Australia... the lower Urals...and Siberia, causing methane hydrate blow outs in the land scape due to lost capping permafrost... blah blah blah... [enter never-before-ism happening again and again here] Forget how warm it gets and trying to say it's been this warm before, and how it doesn't mean CC is doing this... Those arguments are logically flawed when you add return rates at global wholesale scales, and time dimensional considerations... Also, CC has the word "change" IN IT. Saying CC doesn't drive the weather does not drop any mic like those that use it seem to think. The weather is changing; that why the change in CC is there... For and directed at the world of awareness and exposing idiots and liars, that abbreviation needs to become "WC" heh...being a little facetious, perhaps. There are a couple of fascinating article contributed to the IPCC reports that discuss the occurrence of what is called "synergistic heat" ... There is no combination of synoptics as provided by modeling that would support 108 F at London ( say ...), yet enough sites verify that number to substantiate its validity. Heat is an aspect that surges to values greater than the sum of the contributing aspects... I suspect that phenomenon is extendable to the less than historic heat, as well... I believe that we are ( as I have been calling it lately...) experiencing "warm burst" scenarios with increasing frequency because it's tied into the same mechanism...where it goes over and beyond.

I was just thinkin' ... "gone from considering a 30 hour overrunning snow/mix event to a possible warm burst scenario -" Unrelated, the la la GFS' 00z and 06z ranges ended with 80 F bulges to Ohio. We can blame this crap on whatever we want ...but the sad fact of that matter is, in 300 years of N/A record keeping, we did not observe what 2017, 2018 and 2020 ( possibly now?) February's have/are doing in our regional backyard. Regardless of cause, that is true ... I guess you'd have to be brain dead if that didn't resonate on some level -

Yeah...I know - I'm was just sort of water coolering that stuff there. Fact of that matter is... theta-e rises with C02, mathematically predicted ... and since, empirically shown. It cannot be refuted, and duh ...lows/ night thermodynamics have strong proxy by DP. It's interesting to me that the direct insert arctic air masses do not seem to demo that relationship so much. 2015... that deal last month? to name a couple...