Typhoon Tip

Also, when I said we're...I meant that in deference to CT and points SW... Not sure what's up where I am up here is Massivetwoshits but it looks like the situation is evolving into something else. We have Mass Pike little bombs that just erupted. Even triggering warning, meanwhile that MCS itself appears to be weakening? So this all may change the picture some.

well hell if this doesn't confirm what I just said to Wiz DISCUSSION...Volumetric radar data from KTYX indicate a bow echo with a well-defined rear-inflow jet moving southeast at around 50 kt. Extrapolation of current motion takes the bow echo to the vicinity of Watertown, NY, between 1:00-1:30 PM EDT. Visible satellite imagery shows considerable mid/upper-level cloudiness and some elevated convection ahead of the MCS across the Tug Hill region; however, stronger heating is occurring across the Finger Lakes and far western NY with latest objective analysis indicating MLCAPE of 1500-2500 J/kg. Persistent westerly low-level flow will advect that more unstable air mass into the region ahead of the MCS. Thing is, these things tend to expand. I may turn right.. not sure, but I could see an outflow arc evolving with growth along it doing that curl and that would probably end up near ORH later this evening.

I think we're getting clocked ... big wind potential mcs

Right. altho, that version of the GFS was actually demoted by the following spring I think. I thought that was 2017 tho? meh either way. It seems like there was new GFS version ever 18 months between 2015 and 2022

ahh... good snark needs to have some truth to it... Not sure you're on point this time. Ha. Seriously. 100? It's not as common to reach that. Perhaps that's getting easier in recent decades. Granted. Almost has to. But even in these later decades, we're not doing it often enough to justify snark. It's coming though. Much to the chagrin of the assholes that will one day actually be dying from heat while setting confused emojis to anyone that dares talk about it.. that's unavoidable.

I your defense... I remember these summers since 2020 as having 101's on the car dash driving around during heat waves. Depended on where one was. It was like that kind of quantum oscillated away from the tarmacs to hide it, heat. hahaha. Anyway, point being ...when your 98 in a lazily flag waving sear, it's sort of like "close enough" ? That sort of puts this thing in coming up a notch because good luck hiding from this. Ineedsnowcocaine'll be all giddy to tell us how his elevated wooded residence is only 94 so I guess it fails, huh - 2021 had a June bizarre kind of DP heat wave. It was 93/81 ... I remember this specifically because both my kitchen refrigerator and my main living area window AC both crapped the bed literally within the same hour at the apex of that motherfucker. It was like the week after the solstice. Holy hell. and of course... because it was afoot, I had to skulk around the country side for hours to find both on emergency. I pulled it off though. Sat in a blast of cold AC air stream by 8 pm that night, and the refrigerator was picked up the following afternoon.

It may be that we've been "playing with fire" ( n'yuk n'yuk ) in having missed this kind of multi-day integrated heat type. I mean seriously.

well... "heat" is typical in summer - or supposed to be... heh. We've had some summers that were little torpid in that regard - certainly with respect and comparison to CC and the world. I mean it's been warmer than normal? it has.. no question. But we ware lagging ( or been so - ) over the rest of the world for bigger heat event frequency. As others et al have noted and we've discussed, we've accrued much of our CC through nocturnal/low temperatures. Otherwise, as Scott and Brian and I have explained, there's too many ways to discretely interfere with temp rising. Subtle. I mean discrete when using that word, because it is not always very obvious ... We can look identical in the entry to Des Moines IA, yet they're 104 while we're 95...etc.. For that, which is fairly objective ... a result like what this looks like ( currently ) it's capable of achieving, would have to be considered atypically hot. But there's also a couple of facets simultaneously true. Those numbers I described, by scalar AND their implication when combined, are both above normal, but also above "normal heat waves". Any heat wave here is an anomaly... but f we were to say a 90/90/90 three days is 1 standard deviation, this is well above a single Standard Deviation if it goes on that way

Thanks Brain yeah... was just analyzing the grid. If this were not the case ^ than something is seriously wrong with the technology heh

Idiosyncratic notables about this NAM output continue... 6 consecutive periods of at or > 580 dm thickness. Usually even the hottest synoptics tickle 580 around 21z each afternoon and we settle back 576... But this is hanging around at that ungodly height. Trust me...I've paid close attention to these gridded guidance numbers for long years. Tomorrow's no picnic, either. 31C max at Logan is probably a 35 C walking down Cambridge Ave or out over the parking lots of of Natick. HFD and Lowell are cooking.

The 12z NAM grid's fully on board. ..whether this shows up in the machine interpolations or not, notwithstanding... but this is about as hot as I've ever seen these numbers. BOS and LGA Thursday, left to right: 5400051 31 19 -1292 11 25 11 82 34 26 19 5400048 28 12 -3294 142310 82 34 26 20 6000054 39 34 -5891 10 24 16 83 34 27 18 6000047 32 20 -0993 132513 83 35 27 20 Left to right these number illustrate a pure sear scenario. Man and I mean it! 31 and 19% is bone dry sky. Open blue, 100% undiluted solar dump in. So is 39 and 34% at 00z Friday ( bottom row). That's BOS (Logan). Likewise, LGA (Laguardia) is no different. That's the sky coverage... The next digits moving right correspond to wind direction, and speed. 24 and 25 represent 240 and 250 deg, respectively, which average WSW, at 11 to 16 kts LGA, 280 and 320 is WNW, which is idealized actually ...and given to the fact that both locations are identical synoptic constraints, these are also mutable. Call it a west wind at both for now. 0 oceanic influence. The 82 and 83 corresponds to 582 and 583 hydrostatic heights ( referred to as 'thickness'). Anything over 572 is getting into a very warm column distinction. Obviously ... raising this number means integrating more and more water into the column and in order to do that, requires heat. So, clearing 580 is both exceptional rare around our latitude, but also rare for our geological limitations. I'm starting to feel this is our best synergistic heat performance we've seen since the phenom was recently codified. The rest of the numbers, "34 26 19" (BOS, left) is 18z, are deg C. 34 C, left, is at the 980 mb level. Which is very rare, because the actual 2 meter by convention is typically a minimum of 3C above this number in a well mixed adiabatic environment. 4 or even 5 C is not out of the question given to the fact that the total combination of synoptic parametrics are really quite spectacular when taken holistically ( this is part of the synergy consideration). So... in simple terms, a 38 or even 39 C over a the urban sprawl of metro-west of Boston towns is quite doable. Now ... the NAM is the NAM is the NAM... there's that. It also can sometimes go large in heat in the 48+ hour range...then settle back on newer runs. The other 12z guidance is probably rolling out now.

87/66 Kind of a threshold combo. Just starting to feel it.

Yeah I was just going add .. I bet they're just as abysmal as any along coastal land/sea contention. But that's part of the whole "local gradient" thing. As always ... resolution resolution resolution

What goes up … must come down I suppose https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaMVGHzxElA/?igsh=ajBta25tb29sYmtu

ICON had it running into Sunday now... 94 to 98

I saw that. NBM is heavily used by NWS per AFD omission. Is there a verification page or ?

https://weather.cod.edu/satrad/ looping that ... it may also evap a little when it poors over the ridge lines. I guess that times about 2 pm, so the damage may be done S-E of HFD-MHT for temp wrt to cloud troubles. Have to see on that too - Heat's like this... it's a tedious ferreting to find the way it's going to fail.

Good catch! That might explain the Euro's being a little blunted. DP handling and timing is going to be factor-able.

Today might be an interesting test as we head into this anomaly scenario. As an entrance/threshold cross ... the most guidance stall T rises to the 87-89 range, but there are a couple ...such as the GFS, have 90-92. The test may only mean how well the guidance 2-m products ( which I hate anyway - ) are going to handle. But it "might" also be some sort of non-Markovian suggestion of how well we are environmentally materializing the virtual modeling. interesting.. It's complex though. It could also be micro-physical processes that more or less alter responsiveness ... It matters if we're at the ceiling and scratching to lift.

Yeah I followed that up ..it may have 68 to 70F in that range now that I think back a little harder.

It may have actually been 70 F but yeah.

I recall back in my UML days ... 72 F(~21 C) on the rock pile was a useful metric/threshold for hundo at Logan in WNW classic transport heat scenarios. Not sure if this true over all and SW flow types, but I don't see why not ... provided any south coastal oceanic contamination doesn't take place. Preferable to keep the winds less backed that 240 deg (260 down near Scott...) etc

Analyzed everything from the 00z GFS/Euro/Canadian. En masse/holistically the Wed-Sat heat wave was modestly more intense by potential 1-3 F max (which situates higher nocturnals) than the previous two or three model cycles. Emphasis on 'modest'. Because none of these model run/analysis going back several days at this point have deviated significantly from a general motif of being near or at upper bound heat event, it's unlikely to register as much of a sensible human difference. 97 or 101, you're not feeling that change particularly if the DP varies by some ( HI's may vary). Extremist was GFS at 101/102's common from D.C. to Metro West Boston. Contrasting upper 90s from the GGEM. Euro's low balling Wednesday I feel ...otherwise might be a decent compromise. Hard to really pick one over the other. I don't see many limiting factors on this 00z cycle, across the board. All three have off-shore light winds under 21 to 23C 850s, with 300, 500, and 700 sigma level RH fields well below materialized cloud numbers ( ~60%), implying ample solar. The only thing we're missing here is truer longevity, where it cycles between an interim relaxation followed by resurge over a 7 to 10 day memory maker. That could materialize in future guidance, but for now ... the index floor doesn't appear to be as favorable for that. However, there are no huge cooler corrections signaled, either. The indices are more neutral - keeping in mind that they are less useful in summer. And the Euro and GFS have typical autumn troughs erroneously over Hudson Bay... which are not mass-field supported, nor demoing any continuity, run to run. The heights locally stay in the 582 dm range, either way, which connects to climo as AOA Impressive heat wave as is. Seldom do I recall - if ever - two days back to back on MEX with 101 at KFIT. This event has some bulk. Usually we're 94 for 4 days with one day to 99 typology. Not sure what our climatological "normal"/seasonal heat wave is but I know we don't typically succeed 100 two days running save for some rare historical events. We'll see where this lays out.

It's probably meaningless of course but ... see the whack Euro at the end of that run? wtf chuck. 600+ ridge with a 582 bone chilling trough of NE and the OV. we've been up near 100 deg at 582 hgts.

This is why I wanna create a kind of integrated heat content, heat wave calculation/index, so that these things can be physically ranked instead of hyperbolically so - Having said that, I'm not sure “worst in history” is wrong though? France broke all-time temperature records since the invention of the thermometer came to that region, not one day ...but on consecutive days no less. Why is that wrong? Seems "worst in history" is just about precisely what that was - no hyperbole.