Typhoon Tip

Actually I doubt a phase diagram of that Vortx out there would demonstrate it’s got very many tropical characteristics now that look at the evolution. That looks like a typical pinch off low to me

I don’t know if it’s been ‘awful’ or not… I mean you may be completely correct about that I’m not responding to address that aspect – but I do know it Carrie’s on with a progressive bias - which has been noted et al. And I frankly have been discussing it for about the past 10 years, that it tends to accumulate colder heights on the polar side of the westerlies more prodigiously than all the other models Such that by D6s and especially 10 out in time it’s almost as much as 10 dam colder everywhere on average. Now that imposes a velocity differential wrt the other models and that’s probably accounting for its progressive bias - i’m pretty sure bias it’s registered against verification as well. But I think it’s important here. A progressive bias is stressing the trough and is causing it to split or bifurcate as its leaving our longitude. Such that the N piece runs up into the Maritimes or does whatever it does but the southern piece rolls out over the warm Atlantic ocean and there you go - subtropical storm Genesis.

I’m sort of in the Pope’s corner on that… I’m not a huge fan of those ANA bulges in guidance. … but I’m also open minded. I can see where there’s going to have to be some accounting for a lot of mid-level mechanics rounding the bottom of the trough. That makes us a little different… Which obviously we have a look each situation. Even the GFS with its tendency for progressive bias at all scales is showing a burst of snow over western zones mid day Saturday. So yeah it’s a good way to look at it , expectation-wise. – just trying to make a little chicken salad out of chicken shit

No… He doesn’t. And a couple of times albeit rare, where he showed a (maybe) modicum of awareness to the notion, he’s then introduced us to a new layer: impenetrable stubbornness. Replying phrases to the affect of ‘I’m going to stick by my guns … it’s not going to change my opinion’ Which isn’t just stubborn he also misses the point, evidenced when he responds like that - not getting the connection between that posting tact and subsequently not being considered a value in discussion because of that delivery. Which isn’t just a styling problem… He’s also wrong - call a spade a spade - In the first place because global warming is not eating us alive and every CU cloud bubbling up on a chart isn’t a blizzard. I’m being a little harsh admittedly… But sometimes you have to put a dash of salt because bitterness unfortunately carries the truth the best way. He has said things in the past that seemed more lucid… But then I saw yet another layer lol. When somebody responds to the lucid post with something encouraging to move a conversation along, he then replies with the word blizzard. Hahaha … really excitedly too

Yeah that second sort of delayed/quasi Miller B idea’s intriguing looking in the 12 Z GGEM. Definitely trended I mean it’s not quite there yet … actually it is there for the Berkshire, so it’s already making a move. 12z GFS now with an 18Z Saturday burst of snow NW zones … have to see how this evolves during the week

Well … it’s not IMpossible. The models don’t really put out solutions that are impossible… They may be physically less likely – but that’s up to the forecaster to accept or deny what they’re looking at etc. etc. This is kind of a tricky situation. It’s rather unique - seems more and more systems as of late have seldom observed aspects. But in this case we have a transient opportunity for Western Ridge to really feedback on amplify an eastern trough - and it’s a very good looking evolution at mid and upper levels. However, the bottom of the troposphere is just too warm everywhere in lateral dimensions. Very weak baroclinic gradients. And what the models are doing is resolving that by not providing any resistance to sfc cyclone response, very early in the wholesale evolution. That’s why-for the early low up in Ohio like that, and then weakens shearing out through St. Lawrence - it’s because there really isn’t very much support aloft (mechanically) for the low to exist up there - warm air is killing us this season so far to be blunt. But that’s why that behavior is doing that. Then, model still have to accommodate or rather account for all the mechanics swinging around the bottom of the trough where - if it were colder out ahead of this thing that early would’ve waited because the boundary layer would resist cyclostrophic circulation. It’s called boundary layer resistance…. So the total result … a split with some low development shearing out early and then the wave developing a stride the mid Atlantic may actually take place as the mechanics come around. It likely will. No idea from this range “weather” will be bulge back west enough to do with some of these models that are suggesting that

Okay so there’s convincing suggestion for a significant pattern change after the 15th .. 20th Details later ..,

Not to be a dick but… the idea of this wave event splitting into two has been on the charts in more or less suggestion for the past week, actually. It’s not so new. I suspect we’re just getting around to noticing it. I kind of miss lead people myself because I thought the the lead wave was really a warm advection burst or thrust pushing up through New England. But now that some time’s gone by the models caught back up with that thinking it looks more likely that it’s just lack of cold air in the antecedent setting is causing the storm to mature a cyclone prematurely relative to the trough amplitude. That shears from Ohio through the St. Lawrence seaway. But the actual better trough amplitude happens later and that’s what the GGEM and EURO are picking up on. An idea that the 06ZGFS actually hinted a little bit towards doing also with flashing over the Greens with a late wave development

Both sides are wrong ... And both sides are right ... Neither is going to acknowledge that in either direction, so the engagement is likely futile. This California "correction" is not going to "balance" the last decades of deficits. They'll flood and have land slides, and big snows in the Sierra, ..all that. But the fact will remain ... ((30+ years average) + (this season's contribution) ) /2 will still = negative California's epic season is not climate driven - climate does not drive storms. It seems there is a decay in the general zeitgeist in understanding this. Climate is a numerical result of means and averages over extended periods. The weather creates the climate - not the other way around. That was better understood - or becoming that way ... - at the water cooler and bus stops of Americana 10 or 15 years ago, but it's slipping - it seems. Yahoo-ism is taking back over. Promoted no doubt by irresponsible reporting by mass-media, as well as the uncontrollable content of social media's ginormous impact on the modalities of Humanity - at this dangerous point in human evolution ( 'nother hell altogether...). People are becoming knee jerk "reactionary attribution specialists" wrt to this climate stuff. This California type of season happened in 1982 ...years before this hockey-stick acceleration in the global climate had begun... And there are geologic evidences if not just annulled facts of river events going back centuries, too. There are two climate concerns ...overlapping. One, the strike on the west coast is part of the many varied Earth system normalcy. The other, the atmosphere on Earth is warming ...which is measured fact of truth, against said normalcy. That cannot be debated. You cannot simultaneously observe a rising thermometer, that corroborates with physical sensation, and claim the temperature is not rising. To attempt to do so is fantasy.

We're also getting roasted by a Pacific flood on D9/10 of that Euro run, without a "PIG" low - as y'all call it.

Huh... does the Euro qualify as a "cutter" ... seems it's like a "east-based cutter", if there can be such a thing. ...which in the absence of enough cold air, in January no less, must also qualify that as a "west-based boning" .. I don't know. I was thinking driving around this morning doing errands ... we can squeak a better result out of that thing, but it can't go west or we're cooked. Some of the GFS runs have been getting close, but then would Miller B just in time... What does the Euro do, summarily goes west. But it's doing it from Cincinnati to Montreal, which is a trek less traveled. Yeah... I also think the lack of cold is killing us this winter. We can't seem to manufacture enough ... it either rolls out or just moderates, too quickly. If more cold, dense air would slab into the NE ahead of this thing, we probably wouldn't be in the waiting room out aside a Turkish rape clinic ...

Oh, so you were talking about the 'modeling' of the telecons, not the telecons themselves. If that's the case... yeah, they've been more unstable in guidance performance...I'd say that began roughly 10 years ago. I recall in the 1990s ... + and - regimes in PNA used to last longer. They same to Rosby roll-out/back with far more frequency now. That instability ... the models are going to inherently not do as well performance-wise. As an aside... that all began roughly when oddities of extremes increased in frequency all over the globe, too, winters and summers. Probably, not a mere coincidence. The teleconnectors work ( by the way...) because what it is really all about is "conservation of mass" If the heights are high in one spot, they have to be lower in another. That's just physics in a domain where mass is neither lost or destroyed, as cliche goes - but is apropos. Now, it doesn't have to be 1 to 1, either. Using the NAO again for an example, the domain could be in a very deep negative mode; that doesn't mean that the compensating positive (the teleconnection) is all concentrated in that one spot - there can be an aggregate of local maxes(mins) that suffice mass balance. There can also be general miasmas of positive heights over the NAO domain that are more tepid with one deep vortex balances that way, too. Sometimes a big NAO block will have a parade of smaller negatives that in total and time, amass to the balance. etc... The correlations exist, because of that arithmetic. Now, to make this all actually confusing ( LOL ), that is all happening in perpetual motion.

More so down our way then up your way… but it’s funny about those “known biases” they’ve been for the most part true every time they’re brought up, but the problem is, it hasn’t mattered. Maybe it will this time maybe it won’t. But given to your latitude up that way that would probably be the best place

Your first paragraph is kinda hard to parse out what you’re trying to say there. But I’m not sure why you’re attacking the teleconnectors? It depends on what one is using them for. If they are using it to predict storms and snow and or warm and nice sunny weather, whichever it is they want, then they’re not using them for that what they’re designed for. They don’t predict specific weather. What they do is provide statistical correlations. For example… Positive height anomalies over the D St. correlates to negative height anomalies over the eastern seaboard of the United States. Having said that, there are no correlations that are 1::1 either m. Just because the correlation suggests, doesn’t mean that’s going to happen. But secondly it may increase or decrease the chances for getting a storm along the eastern seaboard but that’s all it does- it doesn’t drive or force the storm to happen so it’s not like if the storm doesn’t happen, or the sunny day doesn’t happen, one can blame it on the teleconnector

Now I think people are going to just start being in awe of the enormity of it, surpassing any will to do that lol Another way to look at it? Sometimes it’s just so bad you gotta marvel. That’s what Christmas 2014 was like. It was close to 70 when the sun came out just before the cold advection… We walked around downtown and cargo shorts and T-shirts and it was just too beautiful too strange to not appreciate that. Of course all hell broke loose a month later. This year you almost get the feeling like it can’t I don’t know why not the most scientific thing to say that. Especially coming from me but whatever

Exactly ... man - I was just thinking about this, this morning. It's not a good comparison, actually, for the temperature aspect. We 'might be' sorta kinda backing into our own "attribution" association... or risking doing so. But either way, this whole spring coastal storm shit is different - I'm right on the cusp in life of being an 'old timer' ...so not ready to fully commit to the "when I was a young" mantra. LOL. But this is the first string of winter bonings that have been above normal the vast majority of times. Even when we put together a cold month...it's like +.25, opposed to +3.0 seems that way anywho. They could still be mutually exclusive - or more so than it seems... That too. But it's not a good look to be above normal all the time, then... no snow/going under. Oops

Very Jersey like ...yup. And south of Newark, too. It's funny ...there's been vitriol in the past, when folks dared the 'impertinence' of saying, "welcome to Jersey" ..re the climate bands moving N up the EC.

Two words nicely describe the Patriot prospects for today's 1pm match-up against the Bills: dead meat That's the forecast... Maybe they can pull off a "Dec 23, '97" bust

Care to wager the last of the remaining qualifying anatomical features …?

That was a pretty solid trend to be colder by a model that has a lot of trouble seeing cold air in the lower troposphere at this range - that being the GGEM.

Lol. Ray’s going to be hip deep all right… Hip deep in kids

In all these guidance doing so there is a more robust western ridge … burgeoning across subsequent runs. in fact the only thing stopping tonight’s Canadian and GFS from committing to a more coherent Miller B scenario is that the trough is too noisy. The pattern around it seems to at least transiently already be a fit… Despite not being any Tele connector support but that’s another fascination. Anyway there’s interference going on inside the trough. Those models don’t seem to know which jet max to really focus on. Like the GFS decided to go with an Ohio low whereas the Canadian tries to run a low up the ME coast and then have another new low developing east of Cape Hat. This is just crossing inside of DAY6 by the way… This is no longer a deep extended range affair

Looks like Ray’s down to one testicle …

I actually don’t have a problem with the MJO contributing some … The hemisphere appears receptive to it actually moving east of the Niña firewall. Dispersion (wave propagation) is constructively interfering. It’s just not an aspect that is on the charts at this time - It won’t drive the pattern … it may contribute. NCEP has 70+% prob for NIÑA neutralization over the next 40 days. It could in total send the pattern roulette turning for a new number. No idea what their reasoning is but these questions are worth asking.

Also ... ( sounds like self promotion but I'm really not after that - ) ... I mentioned a week or so ago that there is almost no discernible behavior in the modeled telecon spreads at the time, that necessitates an 'index' scaled correction event. That's still the case. The heavily concerted PNA is actually in process of falling negative during this next thing. It's really almost impossible to create a storm that is like what some of those runs over the last week, looked like, without the restoring/mass-field perturbation model for how/why ( physically) 'big storms' are created. Plus, on top of that ...we are dealing with paltry ambient gradient circumstance everywhere below about 55 N ...from N of Hawaii to NS. I was thinking yesterday ...this may turn out to have been a red herring 'model magnification' dupe storm, all along. Kind of like the 12th - remember that? Sure enough...the model runs since yesterday seem to be trying to devolve the whole thing. Still a long way to go... but a non-event in a way is a morality victory. Because it's not like we're "missing" an opportunity that doesn't really exist, given the former outcome.