Typhoon Tip

00z NAM looks like it’s got an inch or two burst of snow and wind whipping matters around … perhaps flashing tomorrow evening, with the arctic front

It gets increasingly more difficult to see that happening, anyway. Just being candid - I mean, we get these incursions that jolt a cold dagger, ...but, 582 hgt to ALB less than a week later? 5 8 2 That's a whack anomaly for ending Decs. Seeing 588 creeping up the lower M/A on some ensembles, too, is really an "attributable" offense imho. That beauty of being completely irreverent to mores in the matter such that I am, I don't give a shit if offends people. We bake and go DISproportionately above climo, compared to however far this goes below. Anything to make sure the longer term continues to climb against climate, appears to be the return routine. I was talking to John today... this is the way. We don't roast to 108 around here in the summer. We do it with low temperatures at that time of year. What we do here, is we own the world at winter screwing warmth. 3 Februaries out of the last 6 years were 80+ at some point during, over SNE. I'm sure it's happened abroad ...but we've been +30 to +40F high temperatures in recent winters, three times. I'm like... really

Heh...looking at these recent GFS/Euro runs, this thing really does not produce that much synoptic snow in the united states. It's wrapping up really late/Ontario ...that's where it appears to establish those QPF machinery. It's a like a violent snow flurry out side of any LE

The storm has sped up over the last six days… Just some armchair obs morning … The that it doesn’t really stick around very long and it wraps up really quick and pulls up over the northern Ontario and actually more than less disappears completely off the face of the maps within short days I think it’s really conceding to the fact that it’s a progressive baseline that we’re sort of either heading towards, or maybe already in deceptively hidden. We didn’t know at the time … but it was never going to be a slow down stall or like the Cleveland super bomb and all that stuff. Nor is it going to establish those exceedingly low pressures and set records like it looked like it could either… Seems like we have been again victimized by neutering system as it gets into nearer terms. The system will still be hugely powerful… Such that shaving 20 or 30% still leaves a major impact - or can. I’m noticing the QPF in most guidance the great lakes for snow is dropped some over the last 48 hours … Chicago may not even get much snow from this after the initial arctic front, I wonder I mean it looks like it could almost be an ‘arctic sands’ storm perhaps enhanced by embedded or integrated lake affect. I’ve seen something like this when I used to live in Western Michigan where for a time, it gets really cold and a lot of winds and so much fracturing that you end up with just this cryo-miasma coming off the lake as opposed to organized bands. Not taking pot shots at a really impressive system and the execution of what was a great early detection for a North American storm signal… Its unfortunate it couldn’t work out better for us as winter enthusiast in our local region but sometimes you get the bear …sometimes the ‘bare’ gets you. The only thing I’m a little critical over is that we’ve all been assuming this tremendous result but the storm’s had a kind of disorganize or disjointed surface anchor point for quite a while -even at this late stage it seems like it’s still sort of stretching the surface low. I believe a lot of that is because there’s weaker baroclinic gradients out ahead of the Arctic front so without those ambient more concentrated frontal boundary- related mechanics …the actual cyclone model is a little bit disrupted. That might be why we’re not getting quite the real depth/focal point in the surface that those striking MLV would argue possible. But I think it’s also feeding back and why some of the QPF is starting to get vacated.

There's a 'model error' climate that suggests not being too liberal with wind. I admit to being somewhat weary of that and letting it influence my sense of 'urgency' leading this, and recognizing some of those factors you note - it's like given any reason to limit and we bust wind headlines.. However, Ryan's been posting some rather impressive material over the last couple of days - eventually...one of these times, we'll get a break through. We did have that over SE zones a couple three years ago.... folks may or may not recall that? I can't re the specific dates - but there was pig wind signal which turned out both true and false. It was false here in the interior, but simultaneously OVER performed if anything over the SE coastal plain..etc. I have this event in mind too - though it's not a analytic comparison... just to point out that break through can take place.

Mm there’s a signal here… It’s modest, but sometimes at this sort of range that’s all you need. If not gonna be a huge hemisphere signal like the one we’ve been following … those can start this way and show up like subtle. At least one reason to be open minded is because the numerical equivalent of the teleconnectors are still lit up through that time frame. Another reason is because George got thru a thread ownership without dropping a B bomb. … really deserves its own merit

These ENSO events have been having a tough time consistently coupling with the atmosphere. So it’s hard to imagine that that would be even more so when the ENSOs is weak. We’ve been in a coupled state the last three months but it’s not been the way it has been going last six or seven years. Just bear that recent decadal trend in mind.

Complexities in the failing cyclogenic feed-backs are causing this thing to 'wobble' considerably in very recent guidance cycles. There's too weak of ambient baroclinicity/vague frontal slopes in the OV and lower Lakes region, as this very deep (-4 SD ) 500 mb anomaly and very powerful associated jet/jetlett maxums are fisting their way around the under belly and outpacing the polar front. This thing is missing an anchor point/foot I'm noticing there is weaker gradient and mid level winds on the northern side of the 500 mb barrel, and that's a red flag for a sfc position too far NW of support when you see that - pick a heart ache that went out to sea on us if you need a memory refresher and odds are you'll look that up in library and see something similar... The 18z really pressed the mid level vortex so far E that at this point it's outrunning support for the previous sfc low location(s). It almost looks devoid of a real cyclostrophic axis and is blown open like a broad generalized area of deep PP anomaly. Very strang looking system... "as modeled" - wondering if this thing may change in future guidance. This strange abnormal look and abandoning primary aspect could be a sign of trying to change to a different scenario in future runs. No I'm not saying we're back on for snow per se- not even close.. .Just that this systems handling is in question. That is all...

I noticed this too…modeling illustrating much more of a deep low pressure potential wind bomb scenario for a lot of places, more so than a snow event as the main headline. Just the way it looks now of course… I was saying before it almost appears like the models are having some difficulty resolving a surface response to all that incredible mechanical power going on aloft. I’m not sure if there may be some flop over with handling the QPF types too. Maybe… But I’m also noticing that there’s a lack of cold air associated with the storm at the core? which is interesting ..so it’s almost like the deeper pressure is not really associated with the colder air so it’s not really crossing up those critical jet fields that you get where are big snow events … an interesting kind of genetics for this particular storm. So if a more cohesive surface center is chosen in future guidance I’m wondering if we might see some of this get a little bit more structured. On the flip side …in lacking some of that cold air that’s why we’re seeing the low pressure at the surface wrap all the way to Chicago while the ML’s over Ohio - that’s what we call ‘core wrapping’ or we used to back in the weather lab days. Storms that are more driven aloft will tend to look this way. So there are kind of multiple things going on here… It doesn’t have enough cold air in the low levels associated over where it has a surplus of mechanics going on aloft. There’s a disconnect there a little bit

This appears more historic at 500 mb than the surface ... either that, or the models are having a tough time working out the sfc response to all that obscene mechanical power going on aloft. I compared the Cleveland Super Bomb with this one, as modeled. The 'Bomb was down to 953 just before it left the U.S. for southern Ontario. This one, blending the operational version ( which for all intents and purposes are in agreement with one another) it appears 978, roughly as much as 25 mb shallower. Here's the difference. The sfc +PP are impressive over far NW Plains as modeled, with a node there near 1050 mb! And it is spatially large and sprawling ... there's arming to a second node that's 1040 N of Maine. So the ambient or environmental base state is above normal pressure. That means at a 980 mb low is deeper than we may think relative to that elevated state. The 'Bomb did not drill to hell and back amid that same ambient sfc pressure. In fact, the 12z sfc chart on January 26, 1978 featured a modest 1032 mb high node, situated quite far away west of James Bay. Feb 1978 did that, with a well dug down to 974 mb at max depth, against a much higher ambient pressure domain... arm reaching across Ontario. Not that either 980 or 974 are shallow lows, either.. But the actual situation gradient is vastly more important in assessing aspects such as wind - in particular. As an old school quick metric, 1mb ~= 1kt, such that d(p) ~= max wind. In the case of the Cleveland Super Bomb, 1032 -953 ( and one could argue that since the 1032 node was so far away that it may be a bit of a stretch to use that as the high end) = 79 kts. In the case of February 1978, this works out to 76kts. Close enough to what actually was reported in max gusts in either storm of lore to satisfy the approximate metric of 1mb to 1kt. As modeled/said mean above, this event looks like ~ 1050 mb against 975-ish. So 75kts. That's not here, though. The low level PGF is what it is in our sector of the cyclone. Plus, with that +PP situation N-NE of New England, we may end up elevating some of the wind over a boundary that proves a little more retarded ...hard to say. I would be worried about ORD-IND and Michigan, as the low really bottoms out in that vicinity, and there's not a lot of wind restoring mass into that core, prior to the low then moving away... That's setting up a very exceptional allobaric circumstance... It's like an eye-wall look there --> explosive isallobaric wind potential. I lived in southern lower Michigan for a little over a decade many ...many moons ago. I have seen some of these backside wind bombs take place, where the low slips past and then there is 60 mph wind gusts that rose out of no where. This looks like an opportunity for something like that. It's different than that 2005, December "sting jet" ... it's more purely a wind acceleration do to restoring extreme short range d(p). But we can have drama here ...unrelated to that type of phenom. There's likely to be a hefty WCB jet feeding this beast... That leading edge of the cold air/front is outpacing enough to flip some decent QPF to a W -E flash transition ... but that also means that there's going to be some pretty chaotic instability/omega trying to move parcels vertically through those elevated wind wind layers. You know...momentum transfer...

This is a curious statement that I'm often encountering in the denier narrative(s). Because it is true, yet ... at the same time, it says nothing about whether the climate is changing because of the actions of humanity, now. Using its truth to imply humans don't cause CC now, is a falsity. The comprehension of what I wrote: clearly discusses how the climate change is oversold - but it muses further that it has to be, because of human limitation of perceived causality when in the absence of a direct experience. It says nothing in support or against whether human's are a factor in climate change. Which they are There is, however, in attempting to attribute CC ...that's being done too liberally. Humanity is causing a lot of CC, because of the 500 years of recent advancing combustion power generation ...etc..etc... But the amount that has changed doesn't cancel the usefulness of analogs.

The GFS has gone back west, whole scale, with the circulation medium from off the west coast to off the coast, across the last two cycle. It's a disappointment for winter enthusiasts locally, after seeing some east jogs during yesterday. This appears more likely now, based upon these recent trends, as unlikely to overall come east. Looping the hemispheric view of the EPS and GEFs ... it appears the typical gestation of -EPO, into a +PNA, with the EPO's decaying toward neutral, is underway through the week, but the timing of this impressive embedded wave is just too soon. If it waits another two days and lets the +PNA --> PNAP forcing mature before getting injected over the continent, it would have ( likelier...) descended through Manitoba/MN en route to a more E position at max amplitude..etc... If we want to get into the SPV helping out by blocking it from turn polar ward east of ORD, ...salvaging/delaying lead cold erosion, that's certainly true but we just don't seem to be modulating in that direction. I do think that if there is a 1040-ish mb high pressure N of Maine, there is a standard delay and assumption of too fast penetration N-E of NYC ... I wouldn't care to case if that means snow or not.

Too black or white ... Scientific wisdom says this is a much too stringent perspective. Particularly ...the use of that word, "worthless" - It would only be that way if the undergirding of climate system was excessively different - which it is not. This is not Venus ... despite the entire state of the climate change zeitgeist. The zeitgeist is what it is, because unfortunately .. .humanity does little based upon verbal warning. They have to be struck by discomfort, failing that, fear, to engine motivation to change. I've often mused, 'humanity sets upon the proverbial rail tracks, and as the iron beneath their feet has begun to whir ... they don't move off the track - they argue about the style of shoes they wear to the engagement.' That's because it is an evolutionary trap ( perhaps, irony...) that we do not really respond to threats unless they directly appeal to the standard senses: sight, sound, taste, touch, or smell. If you warn someone of impending doom... they look up and try to observe its truth, utilizing these senses. But, if they look up and see the impending intersect with the "train" as an observable destiny... they will go great strides to avoid said intersect. Climate change is in that folly of evolutionary space. It doesn't have any advocates that directly expose, thus appeal to these standard senses - although ... indirectly? Sure, as we are seeing evidences in the system that CC's slow cook is a destructive influence now. It is thus no wonder why there are more obvious movements and legislation, in general, around the 'responsible' governments of the world. It's because even so much as an indirect observation framework ... begins to appeal to a sense of realism. As an aside, ... human ingenuity has outpaced the biological method for downloading information about the surrounding environment. These "senses" ? They are nature's "USB ports" The way to compensate for the "toad in pan of water," unwitting experiment humanity is turned up the heat on itself ( if one is less aware of that cruel experiment, this metaphor won't work...), is to use fear. It's an unfortunate circumstance that CC has to be over-sold in order to motivate change... An overselling that leads to people applying CC to every thunderstorm. Including ...odd patterns of behavior that failed an analog. Analogs failed in 1980, too. The dial on the Global temperature has moved between .85 and 1 deg C, in the last 100 years. It's not an all or nothing... The cliche, 'shades of gray' is unfortunately apropos.

These run peregrinations indicate the situation is still pretty fluid - and I don’t mean that as an unfortunate pun. Heh. I mean in 120 hrs The mid-level is down near Kentucky …that’s still a ways enough off. And we’ve been having problems with the Pacific relay into North America all season long with timing and structure of short waves …it’s been a spacial-temporal nightmare for determinism so its a red flag imho to put a stop on presumption

I’m not sure I buy that thaw just yet. Hmm.

GFS has the 26 to 29th system back again as a really aggressive northern string digger… Better fire up a thread LOL

The ridge or western North America is also bulging east more aggressively on some of these guidances. That’s probably more important in where this thing ultimately locates in the west east aspect. but the sp Vortx stuff going on north is very important for how our boundary layer conditions will be as well and if it gets strong enough it will ultimately stop this thing from going up in Ontario altogether and we end up with a whole different scenario anyway

The GFS can’t really adjust any more east with the deep layer or that low is going to start committing more to a coastal scenario. It’s already kind of trying. I’m also pretty certain that the boundary layer is being eroded too quickly New England with a high-pressure up there

It was originally ‘boat’ But people didn’t like it …so I changed it to the other one out of diplomacy and mild social stigma lol

Yeah, it does The discussion point is/was the signal? How a direct threat emerges within that signal was never guarantee? I mean I’m not insensitive to it… People obviously are going to be inclined. However, I also pointed out that I was above confidence for an impact in our area; I never explicitly said it would be a blizzard or the snow storm or anything like that. meteorologically, … seeing as this is a Weather board, the thread is on point but obviously we collectively want a result different than Detroit Michigan lol I cautioned folks that it’s still 132 hours before this thing is committed to a Great Lakes cut. It’s 5 1/2 days from now …there’s time for this to wiggle back east and in fact the 18 Z went east about 500 miles from what I’m seeing. The other thing I also noticed is that there’s a 1042 mbar high park just north of Maine and these models all have pressure in that area above 1036 anyway. Yet they’re just taking the storm straight through it without any hesitation in the body layer and I find that hard to believe so this is going to be correctable at the mesoscale as well as we get closer. Assuming it is a big dramatic storm (which I’m not even sure it doesn’t start to normalize and become more moderate in scope anyway as we get closer but that’s weak speculation ) I don’t post threads to placate people’s d-drip. At least that’s the furthest thing from my mind. When I see a signal that large that powerful I’m going to want to discuss it anybody would. The fact of the matter is a Great Lakes cutter, or an East Coast event, would fit in the signal people just need to deal with that

This as is kind of reminds me OF an '80s storm.... At least serviceable cold --> rain --> cold There were several years there in that decade where it was just easier to give in an assume that's what would happen. What's interesting also, is that there were several exceptionally deep powerful bombs that just nicked the Cape but missed otherwise that decade... It was like there was this diverter in the field sending everything W or S ... seldom through the middle. But, there were some. We had pretty spectacular positive bust event in early February of 1987 I think it was... Supposed to be 1-3" ending as light rain, and we got 10" in 4 hours with thunder. Then there was the 'ZYSYGY' storm in '86 I think it was... that dumped 20" over interior eastern Mass. Here and now... I wonder if 'model magnification' may be overdoing this thing some. I've wondered that from the beginning. We don't need 962 mb lows to answer for a 'big signal' ... A 978 mb low over NYS will do just fine to standardize butt bang NE out of a white holiday, and still be sufficiently large to account for the D(+PNA) --> PNAP. This is also a situation where the signal is very real... but whether it affects this New England region or Michigan is coming down to the fact that the PNAP is biased W. The ridge has gone back W or is going W, depending on which guidance, and so the wave comes in and rails SE too early to be an EC expression. That's it. I suppose it can change. Also, if the flow proves less amplified overall, you may gain some longitude back for just being a flatter significant system over one that takes a larger parabolic dive.

Interesting how little the overnight various sources did to resolve differences among the various sources. For starters, at just 156 hours (~) lead left to go before amplitude time, to see the entire GEFs suite that much different than the EPS ...ranging from mean and spreads astride the EC, to full southerly blown Lakes cutter, not personally sure that's very normal. 156 hours is right on the cusp of 'not so far out there' vs acceptable variance so. Whether one gets the model cinema and d-drip they are looking for out of these runs today ( lol ), there will certainly be some value in the mystery in its own rights. The operational runs more than less are within their ensemble clusters. No help there. GFS has ICON model on it's side - but having read how/why the ICON model got its name/technology therein, I'm not sure that's just a coincidence. No help there. This is a great chess match. On one side... we snow --> mix --> rain --> snow, windy coastal bomb that rides either just west of the I-95 corridor, or if the ~ 1/3 of the GEFs seaward members are right ... a humdinger with more snow rides east of that track. On the other side, the air mass out ahead turns around and bodily moves out with no cryo entry...it just sort of matures from whatever we deal with after today's morass, into tea-time with Grinch. There will be a winner, and a loser - .... lol, ah HA! the NAVGEM splits the difference almost precisely looking at the mass-field in and around the event. That's amost comical, that the course of lesser regret in this situation, the compromise, is right where that particular model depicts its synoptic evolution. Again...given to that model's history and the fact that it's not really supposed to be used for this sort of analysis over land ( per it's creators). No help there. All the while, a huge signal is still there for a event, and at least that much of this is higher confidence. Just some morning musings... I could almost see this devolving - though - from a big one to perhaps two more moderate events ( with upside), spread out. The NAO is weakening it's negative grip in the numerical guide - not sure if that meets with the eye-ball test on the geopotential means/charts... But, with a -AO/ rising PNA --> surging +PNAP, the idea of a fast flow does enter the picture. Fast flow is less physically conducive to bigger singular events... That may help distribute impulses more than collect them ..etc. From what I am seeing of the 00z Euro that really differentiates its overall handling out there is that it is sagging the western end of the SPV draped across southern Canada, into the Pac S/W as it slides by heading SE...and this induces a subsume phase, which torques up and breaks earlier across the continent. It's really outpacing the +PNAP, or is right on top of it in space and time. The GFS appears to keep these streams more separate, as does it's little buddy the ICON, and it's system ends up less wound up ( albeit still potent) farther east.

Wouldn’t be shocked if this whole thing just turns into a modern event by virtue of moving too fast. Maybe two of them around this time, and again in the 26th to the 30th. This sucker’s movin right along in the guidance lately no matter what it does

Not necessarily. That lead wave in effect “steals” dynamics away so the real low is kept weaker than it could otherwise be … but that limits the amount of cyclogen feedback on height falls lending to keeping the entire structure from closing. In total this keeps everything open and sheers the low pressure out along the gradient of the isohypsis aloft and that’s why it looks that way with that weird fist. Yeah taking on low pressure below 960 right over the chain of the white mountains is a little odd

I suspect what’s going on there with these runs that are further east is that they are prematurely detonating sfc responses along that incredible baroclinic interface thats gonna exist along EC. Then running up the coast and running away with everything before the best Q vector forcing even catches up with them so we end up with these dual centers