Typhoon Tip

I wonder what the return rate on 'great years' really is. There's probably no way to reconcile 'qualitative' vs 'quantitative' in trying to answer that... One is by design, one is what's actually built. If we think of a 100" winter at Springfield Massachusetts as a great year, I guess you wait 50 years between great years. Ha - If average snow, with administration of enough cold that we don't have to puke it in +8 F means is construed as a great, ... that has not happen in 10 years. My point is, I don't think we have had a lot of great years in the last 23. I think we have had some exceptionally good interludes within years that had a lot of disappointing spans. That's what it really hearkens to my memory. I don't know. It's anecdotal and probably not ultimately an influence -able discussion point. But even 2015 for me was a shit winter that happened to have a 3 week period of ... some kind of freak thing. Half the year simply did not exist. I mean, we can compared that to this and say through January 20 - which year was worse. But, Feb had not happened yet in 2015 so don't let that cloud our judgement, the two years were strikingly bad prior to that 3 week period of lore. The subjective take on 2015 is that it was a historically great winter - or I could easily see that in one's spirit. But in terms of time? It was half and half. Ha, I never passed an exam with 50%. In terms of snow totals? best in history - sure.

Right - and if that is true... it was out of phase.

Yeah... and also, folks should think of the destructive vs constructive interference as not one or the other. It's really about phasing proficiency. Doing so in/at different aspects dimensions, as well. Example, .. do EPOs tend ( for whatever reason ) to move in concert with NAOs... ? Or, do these subsidiary polar indexes of the AO, disconnect from the AO - a lesser likely state, but one that happens from time to time. But also, how these field d(mode) wrt to one another... It's true with the PNA and WPO ..etc etc... The d(modes) in d(time) is one dimensional aspect. It can influence the proficiencies at sub-index scales, too, more indirectly. Basically there's no end to this rabbit hole of complexity so ... trying to parse cycles would have it's own headaches capable of putting one into a coma long before they hit the insurmountable task of enduring CC's addition administration of pain LOL

There was cold air around ... it did not get involved ( crucially) ... One takes risks when summarily looking at end numbers then drafting damning conclusions, either way. Have to understand what happened at discrete scales.

Little bit long op-ed: There's kind of a subjective-objective relay going on ... ( that phrase makes no sense ha!) ... But, in short, the pattern may look below... it averages a little below in verification. It may look modestly above average, we get a Feb 2017 run at 80. Perhaps not exactly like that... But when on the subjective side of the relay, whatever the pattern modeled impression has been, the objective or observed after numbers are consummately biasing warmer relative to whatever even the 'best' effort was to be fair. You know - ha ha - maybe that is how climate change manifest. Not in why x-y-z storm flopped to rain. Nor why a-b-c models can't stabilize the teleconnector mass-fields. This may cast an allusion to models not handling a warming world - that may be the source for that debate, as it's coming from the side of supposed technology failure - nothing about the preceding or succeeding takes a side in said debate. I have given some thought to this latter debate about warmth vs modeling the atmosphere. Firstly, it is entirely correct to assert the physics in the models are properly assessing based on fixed thermodynamic and fluid mechanical computations. That's not debatable. Warmer or cooler world has zero effectiveness on those physics - to employ metaphor: the formulas (ultimately the models) are machinery... and the gears in that machine do not differentiate just because they are fed warm(cooler) values respectively. However, the trope, 'it is not that simple' unfortunately may be apropos. The following are questions worth science journey in my mind that should be answered before attempting any conclusions - a process that would likely only engender even more questions... In a warmer(ing) world, there could conceivably be spatial or dimensional ( time included...) layout changes in the mean jet positions. Example, summer HC expansion ... pushes the ambient summer jet farther N, where then C-forcing causes changes in the evolution, length and amplitude of ST ridging residence and resonance W-E... In the winter, ambient gradient is adding balanced geopotential wind speed of the flow - faster flow could certainly also lend to altering the typical planetary wave dimensions (speed in the flow is a variable in wave mechanics). It's mathematical... These above aspect would have to be proven as non-factor-able. Because here is why that really matters. Yes the models will predict positions of jets based on what they are given... But, if those positions are different than the statistical past climate, that would impose break-downs wrt Teleconnection correlations: statistically suggestive tendencies in region B, due to modulation(s) taking place in region A. In short... a -NAO of -2 SD, west or east limb, may correlate to D.C. to Boston's weather typology, differently than prior to the modulation of the jet fields - if this latter is proven to be true. It's a fascinating discussion. I don't - or tend not to rather, suggest this year is a 'victim' of something in the above field of supposition and vague posits, outright. What is happening could certainly take place 100 years ago. Take the 06z GFS... I saw three disturbances that could snow. The problem this year is an unrelenting destructive interference predicament, a persistence that doesn't lend to any notion that it will suddenly become constructively interfering, and at last allow anything to f*ing happen at all. There's something about this year that seems to not be able to overcome the destructive interference scenario - which is basically when you have sufficient disturbances, cold vs warm gradient in every direction ... yet lack crucial phases for interaction. One trick that may help elucidate, if you loop most GFS deterministic solutions, really fast, such that you get a fast motion impression of what's going on, what emerges is a sense that there are two QPF pathways. They parallel one another, but never the twain shall meet. One is snow, the other is rain, disconnected - often a gap of zero QPF aisles between. And it has been like this since the Xmas debacle, really. That is an emergent property, in the virtual mean of the model run, exposing failed interaction of critical mass fields -imho. I roll eyes and don't want to hear it said that there is a lack of S/Ws, or no cold air... That's not what is/has been going on. There is a construction problem in the systemic circulation, all over the hemisphere, that's resulting in < climate storm production. Maybe it's La Nina. Maybe it's climate change. Maybe it's both. Maybe it's just dumb f*ing luck - bad luck. Or maybe it's all three... It is what it is.

Yup .. unfortunately for the modeling cinema addicts there's still very little worth more than fleeting discontinuity runs tainted with troll opportunities to fill needles with these days. It really is turning into a stunningly long, persistent destructive interfering hemisphere. That's really why-for the cessation of events. There are S/W and cold and warm gradients in every direction, utterly out of phases that force crucial interaction. It occurs to me ... back in my college days I recall a moment whence Dr Colby and I discussed how big events tend to precede extended periods of quiescence. We didn't venture but smaller speculation as to why, perhaps there is a kind of mechanical power budget and the storm kind of like over drafts. There may in fact be some sort of geophysical truth to that. Beneath any such enlightenment, symbolism almost insists the Buffalo Bomb was thus the curse that molded the destiny of the 2022-2023 N/A future, ever since. Whether there could ever be science to prove the 'big bomb' cash-out physics ... there really has been < "climate storm budget" realization ever since. These piddling events that wrung up 113 pages of sanguine frenzy, 'what needs to happen so that' over 2 or 3" ... that was just withdraw syndrome driving people to do that. Lol. Maybe only symbology, maybe more, but that bomb really did nothing for the local enthusiast agenda while it seemed to sew fate, either way. I feel a little like I committed the sports commentator jinx, how 'Joe has never allowed a goal in over time in his career,' was said about 34 seconds before Joe's team loses in the overtime at play. In this case, I dared mention the vulnerable risk period between the 2nd and 7th could also express as just a cold wave. I said, precisely f*ing that! I take it back! I take it back! So ... we get through this week, the SPV and N/Stream elephant ass all roll on out... The other side may be obscured some by all that in the foreground... Models really haven't demoed much continuity - not that they necessarily need to beyond day 5. Otherwise, it appears the previous pattern dynamic recurs. It took this almost two weeks to get the pattern change here... So it lasts a week and then we settle back into that same old oscillating between cold that ends up more normalized, followed by +3 days.

Based on history with guidance handling these kind of short duration cold bombs ... from 'over active' N/stream modeling forays ... I'd like to see these kind of numbers < 72 hours lead before I buy fully into this. I think 2016 is the last time one of these worked out and was only 90% of the original 'holy shitness' appeal. Otherwise, these notoriously damp some. No problem with the presumption of a chilly week in general and the 2-day stint of bottom-out readings, but how much -

Gfs is back with the 5/6th … It’s marginal but you can work with that from this range. The bully N/stream SPV has lifted out and taken the inhibitive compression with it. Good start

I don’t see very high magnitude as very high confidence …, cold intrusion is likely

I mean imagine the climate sheet this month? ha.. it'd be like 39, 41, 44, 38, 50, 44, 47, 54, 49, 43, 37, 33, -1 , 35, 45, 57 ....

Yeah ...rain showers or not, that rapid cessation of the cold idea has been recurring across most guidance. They and the blend are trying to roll out the hemisphere with haste. Sometimes we claim 'too fast to break down the pattern' but ... hm, almost feels like this time we can't - or shouldn't.

It's - admittedly for me ... - partial in why I wonder how well winter enthusiasm will fair post the elephant ass mooshing down the trampoline, next 10 days here. I've intimated as much in the past. Not sure about Eric Webb's history and credentials, or 'internet cred' ... et al, but regarding that one statement? -the constructive interference of a Phase 3-4 ( possibly 5) over La Nina, without considering any other factors, he's completely salient that we're apt to having to deal with a hot wall across the south. Op ed: By extension to that ... I have mentioned how over the past 7 yeas, we have observed a week in February host a day near or at 80, amid several back to back days in the same week whence temperatures exceeded 70 F ... three different times. These occurred regardless of (-) or (+) ENSO... I'm pretty sure - don't quote me, but it might be worth it to find out - those three different events were in aggregate, never experienced either empirically extreme over climate nor sensibly... It's like 4 or 5 days were 66, 72, 79, 76, 54 ... with lows some +20 over climate. We have spent far too little time gawking over those ... which were in fact probably the greatest SD events we have actually witnessed at a regional geographic scope and scale ... spanning many decades. We just don't care enough ( perhaps). I mean, obviously it's just not in the interest wagon...etc. No attempt at gaslight .. it is what it is etc. I'm just not convinced there isn't something more to those three warm bursts ... more systemic than chance, lurking in the background as a low -amplitude influencer. Along comes some well timed constructive interference factors and ...well, does that recur.

We take that ... It's marginal and at this range, it is even money. After having passed through a dreadfully awful circumstance by then, where very little (is likely) happened ( although the 2nd refuses to completely disappear and keeps sort of trying - ) at all, uncertainty is a better companion then no love. That event is happening more from the polar branch of the westerlies as a Pac delivered impulse, ...perhaps crucially, after the compression of that TPV has rolled out and left. Once that happens, that opens the door to better logistical chances.

This deep TPV event wanes pretty fast out there between the 3rd and the 5th of February. Towards the end of that transition period, the GFS ejects at wave into the E. That is not an "as bad" look, because the elephant ass has left the trampoline arena, allowing other aspects to dent the flow ... ( heh, kind of hung up on that metaphor lately I admit LOL ) Anyway, I really feel pretty confident that this pattern change has arrived, and much to our collective chagrin? ...it is abysmal. Deal - I mean, really... .01 QPF spanning 10 days of the GGEM model ( and the Euro wasn't far behind). The rain shadow of the Andes is one of if not the most formidable dry damned places on Earth, and that region gets that much from dew/frost condensation. We're attempting to pull off, at mid latitude N/A during the stormiest climate time of the winter season mind you ..., competitive results with the Andean rain shadow. ...astoundingly bad... really - So there's some hyperbole in that above. In essence? it's certainly fair enough. I really feel we need to get through this cold plume variant pattern and the elephant before much is going to take place. This predicament synopsis is wholly prohibitive.

If the Euro and some of these other guidance type/cycles are right about next Friday night I'd suggest you do so with ease .. Hm, it's possible that is a windier scenario holds it above the current 2-meter outlook. It doesn't stick around, either. The air mass comes in sort of Montreal Express, and then the high pressure quickly moves east and the wind just veers right back around from the SW in a lot of these depictions ... Considering the standard 10% reduction on amplitude for cold air at this range, combined with wind motion? may hold it 1F at 3 am that night in reality Right now the 2-meter is about -10F along Rt 2. we'll see

Yet...should be able to set some personal record drive distances in -10 F lol

Pretty much ... ...while fighting the tendency to be less than objective about that. lol - it's hard.

Well ..heh. I guess it's a subjective vs empirical evidence question. Going back to circa November 29 and telescoping the month of December, given the synoptic and super-synoptic vision of the day.. that woulda been a helluva "good period" But it turned out to be patently, vastly under performed ...relative to that - although enters the subjectivity somewhat there, because the historic Lake cutter bomb toward Xmas in a purist's Meteorological perspective, makes that all worth it. For consensus in here? - such virtuosity is fleeting at best. As it were ...that period did not do much at all ( for three weeks of 'good period'!) to appease the New England forum consensus. We then marched through a mid winter hiatus between so-called good periods, ...finally sniffing this one out 2 or so weeks ago. Impatience ran amok but here we are, and the pattern change arrives(d)... and it's just unfortunate that what is modeled in the dailies, and observable in these super-synoptic circumstances ...both appear indelibly destined to another period that will set up good wrt to conventionality, but deliver less that what that convention would argue it should. Which ...it's fair enough to ask if maybe these guidance' are just going to far and that something is in there. One could certainly advance the notion, the models tend to over-amp the late mid/ext ranges... If the models are too plump with the elephant ass N/stream, that may offer a shorter duration lead correction to something. It's right in the climate hot seat for activity/winter storms over these next 10 days, precisely when the models are trying to sell almost 0 QPF during ... But we've done this/that before... 2012 passed through this period with highs around 45 and partly sunny every day, too. At least this time, we'll be cold... Cold is a good foundation... etc. There's hidden arguments despite the convincing aspect of a season's worth of conditionalized sore butting ( lol), not exactly setting us up with the right frame of mind to uncover. ...egh. 'nough of that.

It may be adding big word choice to say, but I just prefer to call it a destructive interference regime. Also, progressive, suppressive ... passive aggressive ...whatever we wanna call it, the flow is vastly too compressed with high velocities. The former aspect would need to be overcome to get much to evolve over the next 10 days of this. The latter aspect would then (likely) limit further, because system profiles would favor faster narrower/shearing type structures. Converged delimiters ( negatives ). The operational GGEM and Euro manage 10 days with .01 base line atmosphere ( it'll frost that much!), with one 24 hour period of -20 to -30C 850 mb Montreal Express. 10 days with nary nada - it's really rather remarkable.

GFS made an attempt at bringing the 2nd back … it became forgotten once the 1st showed up and stole eyes. But the 1st then disappeared and the one 24 hrs later’s trying to reappear. Needs work tho. Fast volatile flow of low deterministic value. It’s possible we succeed in passing thru a buck shot minor event pattern but you’d think with the 31st, 1st, 2nd, 23/24, 25/26 all at one time or the other cycle showing up … one would be real enough.

This 10 days is basically 1980s

it's always a good sign when half the uncertainty spread of your ensemble mean is actually fighting over the sfc PP of the "high pressure"

Fwiw (not much...) but the new ICON solution likes the notion on the 1st of bringing NYC seasonal snow total higher than Boston's

Ugh.. lord with these teleconnectors. They are in a numerical equivalence to a significant event (signal ~ the 2nd to 7 ..8th), but the actual spatial means are not - usually, one corrects toward the other but it seems we're nearing that time and that is not happening. The -EPO leads a +d(PNA), which means the EPO is progressive in nature. That's a cold loading and more favorable regime to storminess (eventually) over eastern N/A, compared to the retrograde EPO variant - which loads trough more semi-permanently into the W and we roast yadda yadda. Despite that progressive EPO, ... .we are getting nothing but compression/destructive interference between the large and small scales.

if you're seriously asking ... heh, I don't know how we can separate the two - an elephant's sitting on a trampoline flow, vs that Miami rule... The mashed compression masks any identity of the latter. Miami rule is a rough means to assess S/W strength corrections as they descend down an otherwise seemingly favorable total +PNAP flow construct. If the heights are higher than ~ 582 over Miami, and the geopotential gradient is steep there prior to the S/W descending SE of roughly the Dakotas...whatever the models are doing along the EC with said S/W, to energize the mood in this social media, plan on that mood feeling betrayed - it's a matter of how much or how little... heh. It's more of an operational weather trick