Typhoon Tip

… You know that reminds me of 1992 now… I don’t like to compare anything to that one because I hold that one in very high esteem lol. But it does when I’m not at work later I might look that up in the library

At least one trustworthy model has to trip dopamine switches… That’s all that matters - This is why NCEP can’t get forecasts better than 50% accurate outside of four days … Their analysis method is way off

Probably should put this in the thread but… Did mention this last night there was a trend to weaken it as it was correcting south regarding the end of week next week. But you know it’s probably going to disappear and come back and disappear and come back

Not to be a word fascist but don’t drop words like blizzard in either case. I realize this is a public Internet depot… But that doesn’t mean it has to be a cartoon starring ‘Ralph Phillips’ daydreams, either. For some of us we actually care about substantive analysis and adult reasoning. Ha Seriously… At this range a ‘significant winter storm in the plains and in the east from the same system’ would’ve been plenty sufficient and doesn’t have to press every event to the ceiling of what’s imaginatively possible…

Yeah my bad. I coulda been more clear in that regard. It was probably confusing just bringing it up at all but I happen to find things like that interesting, how you can do cut outs and compare pieces to other event metrics …as much as you can do wholes? A fascination perhaps only understood in the mind of the disturbed nerd ha ha

Hey Will… So it appears that the efforts of the stormchaserChuck and myself had stumbled into having two threads for the same suggestion - but it’s kind of complex in terms of risk assessment vs having an actual system within that manifold to hone. It turns out that it was just a long duration system that starts at one end and ends up at the other… I wrote some notes about it in those threads. from my perspective fwiw we are nearing or are at a target system. So I was thinking about having a new thread coalesced of those two, or perhaps starting a new one altogether? either way, so that the December thread doesn’t end up having 500 pages before the 15th of the month - just a suggestion. Perhaps it doesn’t matter but this thread’s already getting kind of long to really keep track of them all, as there are other threats after this one. I don’t think we’re done through the end of the month.

Hence “… I’m not saying that’s an analog… “ lol. no but I was speaking to the 500/ ML evolution … The 7am analysis on Jan 7 1996 reminds me somewhat of the 00Z GFS’ 174 hour.

Updating ... It occurred to me yesterday that the effort put out by "Stormchaserchuck1" for the 15th-17th and this one are in fact the same coverage. The origin of the storm genesis - if so ... albeit appearing more likely, despite the long lead - is born of the same synoptic. The 13th and 14th sees a strong Pacific inject over the continent in the west, that quickly maxes in the high Plains.... But the instructional nature of the blocking that's both new EPO and existing well-modeled -NAO is really quite preventative for polarward migration...so the coiled up mechanics et al are being corrected S. This is quite obviously more so apparent in the recent GFS runs, but as others have noted... the EPS and GEFs have been steadily matriculating new members into a Miller B commitment toward the end of this next week, which is the 15th - 17th window. So a bit confusing, but...this was an early risk assessment originally...appearing successful. As far as how all this unfolds along the EC/New England coasts more specifically...that is still D7.8 from now, so we unfortunately can't really be too confident... However, I feel this system is well above the "model-error-climate" and probably does perform in some fashion. As we move forward, the "correction vector" is still S...although the recent GFS operational runs may have actually gone about as far S as this can go. There is a limit to that vector, based upon the fact that the SE ridge/La Nina foot print hemisphere is still lurking. It would be more likely from this point forward, that the GFS would tend to start smearing the tumbler trough into a flatter system with possible multi-wave event....if the suppression were to continue exertion. That's supposition, however. Both the Euro and Canadian have room to correct further. The EPS did appear to collect additional members into the Miller B envelope, but the signal was no improved over the 12z prior run. Plenty of time... So long as the hemispheric mass-field are modeled and that persists, I don't really imagine a scenario where the total tropospheric manifold of forcing with this would end up N of the 45th parallel ...while west of 80W.

It actually occurred to me yesterday that the 13.14.15 event I was covering is actually the same event as this one… We were honing the same aspects; it’s just the morphology of how this has evolved has made the whole of it a 3 to 4 day ordeal. It starts in the Plains, ~ 4 days from now … and it’s a tumbler that takes thru the 17th to clear the EC. Starting to remind me a little bit of that 1996 January event; that was a tumbler that rolled along and eventually ignited the big storm on the East Coast. I’m not saying that’s an analog. I’m just saying the behavior We both have threads for either end of this pig is what it amounts to

I’m not saying it’s doubtful… I’m telling you factually the models have been trending weaker when moving mid range events into the shorter term for a decade. I mean it’s something that has been going on. We’d be remiss not to consider that trend. by the way that’s a 1978 polar high W-N wow

You can clearly tell that the GFS is too warm in the boundary layer again at that range, because there’s no way given that 700 500 mbar integrated evolution that that kind of sfc evolution is going to happen unless there’s a lack of cold air north of the circulation - which that’s unlikely given the antecedent conditions with the block and so forth. So yeah we’re talking about a solution that’s above the 85th percentile at 180 hours ? Mm. wouldnt shock me if this goes back the other way for a run or two before it comes back again but I suspect in the end the result is S.

It’s one run it’s hardly a consensus. Look I’ve been talking about model magnification and having a shed momentum in the mid range for about three years it’s a reality that’s not going away just because it needs to placate this addiction to model cinema shit. Sorry for bringing up realistic reasons to temper enthusiasm and not let it get away from you.

Sorry dude. That’s unfortunately realistic.

Yeah just looking at that 500 mbar evolution with a multi contoured mid level quasi cut off low deepening further while moving slowly underneath Long Island …there’s no way to estimate the frontogenic pounding that’s capable of in that evolution. just be aware of model magnification.

I’m actually more concerned about this whole thing weakening in the guidance. The total manifold of the trough has been steadily losing mechanics in small percentages the last 6 consecutive runs. It could even end up being ironically weak and S in the end. But yeah … cross that bridge. Classic Minnesota squeeze happening in the models for now.

Modestly intriguing look at mid levels astride the NE coast at 120 hrs. Weird meso low out there roo

What’s going to probably happen - and I agree by the way – is that as the mid-level forcing begins to concede to the NAO and comes east and south east …the surface low will initially start being modeled further north and west and inland …because that’s forcing is but then as we get closer the whole thing would then go back east again - Due to a combination of sensing the boundary layer resistance more clearly as it gets colder and closer in the model but also because the mid-level forcing is probably going to continue to crack tomorrow more so. So it’s kind of like a sinusoidal correction

Not that you don’t know this… But like this current run up to this week demonstrated with the lower tropospheric air mass handling, the models were significantly too warm in the mid range and have been correcting steadily colder. There’s nothing about that antecedent condition next week that strikes me as being able to moderate that air mass. Trust me. I would implore people assume a colder boundary layer with much more resistance than what you’re seeing in that GFS solution verbatim

Right ... that's light off Holiday due to icing in that sucker -

I don’t know what the SWFE rules are George. Like Ray intimated… it’s really based upon shared metrics in either direction. I like that. Maybe that in itself is the SWFE definition that best fits Like everything in this field that’s event related there’s always shared metrics. Like hybrid cyclones for example? Same idea in principal just a different subject matter. It’s just a matter of how much or little it means in either direction. I will say that there’s no such thing as a pure Southwest FE because if it is, it overwhelms the cold air and turns around too quick to be significant enough so you have to have at least some kind of a meso involved so there’s your shared metrics right there.

I’m starting to lean like you mentioned yesterday though that CF materializes. that kind of cold weighted air in Maine once we establish the northeast flow and then if the flow tries to go east that’s going to create a thermal interface there; the wind will actually back probably more north towards Fitchburg while ENE wind at Logan in that scenario I mean that might be exaggerating that something like that tho.

Right… I think we mentioned over a week ago the ‘correction vector’ pointed colder and well … that 2 m is one of the many examples how that sort of verifies

I feel this thread is still relevant… And altho the morphology has changed. 13.14.15 is still in play and that is the system for later next week. Part of that morphology is that it wound up in the plains first but it’s extension east to eventually impact New England -possibly- is all part of the same super structure /risk assessing. I wrote the following this morning in the other thread but I think it’s relevant here : …after spending a few moments observing the EPS and GEFS behavior across the eastern and northeastern pacific …downstream throughout North America, specifically pertaining to the 12th through 20th, a fairly coherent difference leaps out for me. It’s the handling over the EPO domain region. That difference is having a fairly significant instructional impact on how the pattern’s synoptic construct orients (crucially) itself downstream. The EPO is less significantly in the negative EPO phase state. Downstream over the continent it becomes a “seesaw” difference in forcing. The GEFs being stronger in the negative EPO phase, bottoms out the heights more in the southwest lat/lons; which is actually not a bad fit within its own reasoning. That would concomitantly lift the westerlies in latitude over eastern North America. The Pacific handling is still an issue here ladies and gentlemen… At the same time, between day’s 7 through 11… the GEFs has taken to dispersing the negative NAO phase considerably - more quickly or more obviously than the EPO. It seems the GFS ‘species’ has been doing this with the NAO off and on - poor continuity - over the last week. I’m not sure I trust that part of this Both ensemble means carry a storm that winds up in the Plains between the 13th and 14th through the east and or SE Canada between the 15th and the 16th, but the upstream handling at large scales, and how it relays from the Pacific over North America , continues to be a problem, and the forcing mechanisms are critical to eventual system type/impacts. The GEF like hemisphere would promote more of a Great Lakes primary with only weak secondary … if only there because of boundary layer resistance in having cold air that is residually wedged east of Appalachia …etc. The EPO on the other hand… Having a flatter negative EPO digs less into southwest which lowers the heights over eastern North America. But while also maintaining a slightly more robust negative NAO structure out in time everything evolves further south and in fact there are a lot of EPO members, toward the 15th, like Scott was saying they end up with a pretty stem wound secondary/Miller B result. So either way there’s likely to be a significant winter storm affecting the 13th through the 17th of the month from the Plains to the north eastern US and we’re still in the process of figuring out exactly what storm type that will be and where. The two primary ensemble clusters that are typically used, their differences are crucially meaningful as to how all that lays out

It impresses me just how bad all the guidance really was when it was day 4 to 7 range with regard to the 2 m temperature layout over the weekend as the NAO is doing that. And we get to see this correction as we’ve near that time. 18 Z Sunday on this GFS has a 34° temperature at Worcester with a dewpoint in the low 20s… Meanwhile up in Maine it’s in the low to mid 20s with two points in a single digits. These same regions were in the low 40s mid 30s with two points higher than that. It has a very significant correction complexion to this whole thing for anything that’s in this pattern of a blocky general hemisphere. I don’t trust the storm after that that we’ve been following that’s between 13.14 out by Chicago and 16-ish here later next week for that same reason. If we’re still exerting off of a nanny oh we’re going to have a completely different lower troposphere from Lake superior to the coastal waters of New England out in the mid range and the extended period

And it may even end up with more than that…. personally as a “meteorological purist“ I haven’t been a particularly huge fan of the Southwest flow even ( since I lost weight – j/k…) terminology since its inception back whence. I mean if a storm is generating a Miller B, it’s a tilted Vortx in the vertical with a primary escaping through the eastern lakes …that’s southwest flow but cyclogen taking over - that’s a Miller b. I mean there’s a reason why thats codified and not the other thing. be that as it may …I get what it means to call it a Southwest event. And I don’t entirely disagree with his essence either so I’m on the fence with the term really