Typhoon Tip

I’m wondering if we’re getting one last run at 90 … hmm maybe a handful of 87s but the gfs just refuses to quit attempting

End is visible ... She's breakin' up on radar. Other than that RI events yesterday and some sporadic CT, this was handled pretty well over all by guidance. The convective totaling in those monstrous local scales ... not really in the purview of modeling skill the general 1.5 to 4" coverage however, is, and that was done pretty good. I'd say the GFS came in behind the Euro overall.

FIT reported 1.93 yesterday, then 1.83 since 00 GMT ... Isn't that 3.76? Why is NWS reporting 1 and change along rt 2?

Heh. Phew. That should keep the totals down huh

Interesting yeah. - there’s also an interesting band of enhancement behaving independent of the general motion of rad over NE Mass. I’ve been using COD, … which isn’t very good of course. But it’s been wobbling like a BD boundary. I checked sfc obs and there’s no obvious indication of a boundary even though it wobbled SW into that position a couple hours ago.

It is true that colder air does not hold as much as warmer air. However George was talking about the giant rains that came out of completely different kinematics that are non- akin entirely to those mechanics associated to snow. It’s comparing incomparable processes.

Did you notice that sudden collapse south of the northern edge up your way. I saw that an hr ago and thought it was just local mt eddy or something but it’s unilaterally along the entire length of the shield … Maybe that halts? But was that modeled to do that - if it doesn’t stop collapsing we’re done even down here by 2 o 3am

Mmm. The synoptics are part of this but they are weak. Mostly weak synoptics operating on huge PWAT, modulated locally by convection

Payin' attention ? - up here in this "synoptic" rain shield this thing is intensifying markedly over the last 2 hours, with lots more 40+ dbz pixelation packing in

There's some variability around area tippers but 1.10 to 1.50 seems to be the range here along Rt 2.

Agreed with this ... I've been writing about this for a couple days here and elsewhere, that the synoptic forcing in this is/was weak, but there is huge parametric situational surplussing with PWAT's exceeding 2" ivo of a convergence - same idea. I also mentioned that this would require a mode switch rad but that's old school - it sounds like there's new tech in the field ( just based upon what you've said) that determines the nature of drop physicality? That's fascinating. ...InCREdibly nerdy but interesting nonetheless. In terms of modeling performance - you know I've seen this before ... There really is a gap where big parameters coincide with weak forcing; sometimes it does, and some times does not bring hell. But you're right - the models splashing 8" totals. I spoke about that earlier, that it doesn't mean no big event just because the continuity sucks. It seems this is more about where we are in technology/modeling - the existence is as important in the runs.

Helluva bright band in down there - they must be getting agglomerated PL's the size of hail, huh. And the sick isentropic lift band in S VT/NH is putting down 3.5"/hr rates ... we got a long way to go on this 42" er

averaging about .75 so far from this event around town, all of which has fallen since midnight. Just off the top the head that's the most in a 24-hr period since maybe the end of June. Someone S of the Pike near the border of NE CT is choking in a water boarding-

This always seems to happen to me. The prophetic 'water cooler,' seemingly innocuous statement meant purely in jest ends up just f'n happening. My neighbor and I were discussing the frivolity of "drought" in New England, not more than a week ago - prior to this ordeal even materializing in guidance. I said to the guy, "...Climate has a way of finding its way back to normal - right? whether that is done all at once, or over an extended series of events, some how some way, we always seem to end up where we're supposed to be" ... The impetus being, it is almost impossible to finish a year with only 5" of water Maybe this is taking the all at once road? Speaking of models, assuming this does go on to 4-7" and so forth, the Euro takes the prize for first awareness. Whether it vacillated after the fact ( they all do anyway ) that guidance picked this up pretty coherently last Thursday. Just sayn' I was on the fence with this in all honesty. I think I've expressed both ends of the pro and con... pretty much even in both directions. I never liked the general weak synoptic forcing. Models were jumping around with location/max too much, too - a continuity signal that sometimes means too much, just as often as it can be ominous. They also disagree. The Euro likes roughly SE VT to N.. RI for 2.5 to 3.5" ... while the GFS is insisting on nearly double those amounts, hammering much of CT/ HFD to NYC. The NAM? ...two runs in a row of 6-8" pretty much pan-dimensional HFD-PVD to CON NH is going to be a neat test - but that model takes synoptic 101 for audit anyway.. . Point being, these disparities are just glaring enough that this is a nerd's porn for model competition. It may be the common theme is that the models don't do as well in weaker synoptic mechanisms. They need that "loud" physical scaffolding to perform better. That does not mean no big event though... It's been a sneaky difficult forecast effort here. There's a gap there ... where big parameters coincide with weak forcing sometimes does, and some times does not bring hell. I do/did like the notion of PWAT pooling along a stationary boundary - those tend to overproduce. That thing in Kentucky several weeks ago is an example ... ( though that's not intended as an analog). These dense theta-e concurrent with slow moving and/or diffuse frontal convergence ...man, once triggered, it's sort of like the 'atmospheric dam' breaks.

I wondered about that Essex Co...

Lol... heh, I dunno about that, but I agree the 6-8" is ludicrous. What this is, is a modest synoptic forcing with convective modulation mixed in. The models can't pin point where those modulation points will be...but more than less 'recognize' the intrinsic potential. So someone walks by and slaps the side of the cray and that's all the trigger it needs in the super computer LOL. I can see 2-3" as the general potential, with the caveat in mind that this has a higher order for uncertainty than is normal for short duration lead. So if it is 1.5" or 4" that range is in (unfortunately) a broader envelope of possibilities.

The GFS is ironically loading Tolland CT in with the max band of 6 to 8"

Handful of 88/65ies out there... Feelin' it

kind of a neat feature here. you can see the cold air being favorably drawn down the Champlain Valley - https://weather.cod.edu/satrad/?parms=local-Vermont-02-24-1-100-1&checked=map&colorbar=undefined

Yeah...looking at this more, kind of a duh factor pops out. Time. ...length thereof ... A miasma of thick mist with light rain falling through a PWAT saturated low level, with occasional embedded moderate bursts ...all lingering onward toward 30 hours would also add up. Sort of out of shape/rusty for durational QPF events given this last 6 months of life around here. Anyway, we'll see. I still don't like the Euro layout.

It's interesting that this product shows a clear preference to topography - That's fine, but it's not like a we have a standard deviation easterly long fetch of PWAT moisture coming headlong into those elevation bands... I don't like that the Euro is doing that without actually carrying along those necessary anomalous parameters. The flow/mechanics just seem too weak to manifest that kind of layout.. Not that anyone asked me but that layout appears too organized for this. The overwhelming/blend therein for this has been for a weak synoptic forcing. It's operating through a 2" (general) PWAT air mass, so just a little lift over the slow moving boundary ...yeah, it should fill in for time.

This may end up down in S. Pa and NJ

right ..it's 5

man you realize the entire state of Montana is in a red flag advisory.

It's not so much south comparing those two QPF layouts to my eyes. This 12z run's just less in areal coverage. The axis of heaviest is really unchanged. I think that may be "sorta" telling ? - the shrinking This whole ordeal lacks very strong synoptic forcing. The models see the instability with pooling PWAT along the boundary and so forth, but then the physical processing might be too sensitive in ending up with those heavier pervasive results out in time, because it's relaying process from the previous time interval that were overly fed-back. That's why as systems near, they sometimes "shrink" like that. This seems to be a candidate for modulating down as it gets nearer. But it's interesting.. .because, even though that may be true, PWAT pooling with a stalled boundary can then pig rain ...so you have competing offsets there a little bit. We could shrink the total areal coverage and still manifest local downpour proficiency.