Typhoon Tip

Distant GEFs mean beginning to parrot the Euro Weeklies for week 2.5+. They/that certainly could change, but it's something I noticed of the overnight's. Fwiw, been advertising the super position hypothesis for February ( considering its application for the whole of spring frankly ... but cross that bridge -). I happen to agree with ( I think it was) Eric Fisher's tweet last week - at least in principle. If indeed the MJO evolves through the 3-6 migration, then possibly terminating back into N/S thereafter, over the top of Pac circulation mode that the models are just aching to couple or recouple with Nina, that doesn't likely end well for winter enthusiasts. In fact, it likely ends unwell. The 3-4-5-6 MJO would be in a constructive interference with a well-coupled La Nina. Those two are a soul mate power couple on the atmospheric Zodiac ... Almost cannot result in a cold stormy eastern North America. If it did, ...it would probably be something like the 1::10 return rate rarity in doing so. We'll see.

..and maybe even a cursory evaluation of the last 50 consecutive IPCC publications could have factored into that? lol

I'd 'almost' argue the thread really isn't that constructively intended haha...

I don't think any operational run can be trusted ...even to standard error, for anything beyond the cold incursion scenario. I find it difficult to believe - for example - the GFS will succeed in having 0 order pattern markers - meaning no pattern period, on earth? It's selling high velocity chaos, which is almost impossible of the geometric sphere to do that without organization of some form or the other emerging. P.o.s. time with guidance and the others are not much better with wild continuity changes in their own rights.

That looks like someone rip-n'-read the (MJO + La Nina climo)/ 2 = another 2017 80F February anomaly. Unfortunately...the idea has merit. But, like Will's product then demos, there are conflicting signals - not to mention that product rendition above. Which I don't really have much faith in the weeklies out ECM but that's another story. I personally don't know but would still warn people ...the look above has precedence spanning the last 10 years of Februaries - or hybrid versions of that. I've mentioned this in the past...

whao .. wait a cosecant here hmm

hahaha... crickets

Feb10/11 offering some eye candy.

There is only one model that is a direct ..( or even indirect as far as I am aware - ) integration of climate, with real time geophysical processing: I provided an op-ed about that a couple weeks ago. Not sure what thread or whereupon it has been scrolled...heh, but it is the CFS model (Climate Forecast System). There's an essay/paper on it - don't have the link right handing - that explains how it is probably susceptible to C02 variances ...etc. It's base-line is 1988 ppm ( I believe it read -), and is cited as why the model tends to maintain a cool bias. Otherwise, the GFS and Euor and GGEM and UKMET and KOREAN, and ICON and Alessandra Ambrosio ...etc..etc., do not saddle their processing with climate.

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