Typhoon Tip

Yeah...I'm not overly impressed with that March signal - outlined a bunch of reasons earlier. A lot of that could be gestational climo norms for Spring. Once it happens that late, by the time the time-lag catch up to doing anything it's too late - April mangles the R-wave layout and the arctic domain loses it's connection with the mid latitudes. Ovah!

Don't think of it as "a heat guy" - .... I think what Brian's trying for in spirit there, is that you will start to feel less uncomfortable at 78 ... then it's 82 ... ..87, etc. eventually 90. Not that I matter - but for me ... 90/48 (maybe 52) with puffy cu offering occasional two minute shade intervals, is rather soothing. Oh, I wouldn't wanna don my running kicks and bang out a 10K in that, no -but... puttsing around the yard and doing chores... or strolling with the lady friend around the landscape, day at the beach.. it's fine. The gestation of life will put you there eventually... It's funny.. I was talking to some kid at the gym that effortlessly cycles through 20 rep chin ups with the fluid motion of an elevator, telling him 'wait 'till ur my age'. He said, "I'll never lose this..." - I just grinned a little. Everyone when they are young, says, "I'll never -" ... but no one since our species crawled out of primordial states died feeling hot. They don't call it the cold shroud for nothing -

ha hahhahaha... I was just thinking that - What really made last year epic was that it started two Xmas' ago.. .with that dragon breath S gale on that holiday... Followed by Memorial Day massacre ... Followed by that 4th of July ordeal that really could only be out played by a species ending extinction event .. .Then, that not being enough, I'm pretty sure that Labor Day was at least half consecrated in rectal plaque - I mean, that lotto winning ( or losing I guess - ) is in and of its self, a 500 year return rate - wow In fact ...fuggit! may as well package this shit show winter up in that same craziness. By the way, even Harvey Leonard thinks this winter has been an extraordinary venture in wasted potential - it's not just affectation. It really did defy odds to in order to be a turd.

Mud turns hard as coal Saturday night. Pretty intense low level temp crash signaled here. Not sure it's a real 'thaw' in the spirit of seasonal escape. ... not even long enough to transience. I bet there's a frozen layer that survives. The signals for warm end to Feb are certainly real, but that could materialize either very much so...or more tepid. The latter version probably doesn't break warm enough to 'keep it thawed out' - it's not slam dunk to ever call a winter over on Feb 11 LOL ... some tantrums I think.

mm hm, that's the way it looks ..but the magnitude is an interesting question for me. One take: the dailies handling, the PNA telecon, is presently not hugely negative coming from the GEF cluster. I'm not sure what the EPS curves look like - are they concerted or dispersive? are they showing a mean that is deeper(shallower) than the GEFs (https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/pna.sprd2.gif ).. Just for confidence's sake, cross guidance support ..etc. Anyway, the oscillatory behavior coming out of the last several cycles of the operational runs et al that other's are noting, really actually fits a more neutral PNA suggestion. take two: The AO is forecast to be loudly positive, as is the NAO... well into the end of month. So, even modestly negative PNA may end up with a disproportionately N displaced exit latitude of the continental westerlies. That's code for, more eastern ridging, more so than the models are showing at this time. There may be a subtle correction vector to raise eastern heights, in which case, that occurs over time as an emergent property... Yet a third take ... year over year seasonal trend. We've observed some startlingly warm events to 45 N across eastern N/A in recent late winters and early springs. This has taken place pretty much regardless of ENSO this, or polar index tendencies... So there's some sort of causal root that's difficult to ascertain - it could just have been dumb luck that we've had so many of those over the last 10 years. Having said that, it does make one wonder: if we map 'take two' over this local climate signal, what happens then? Actually, superimposing 'take one' over that may hedge warmer yet. Lastly, this is all predicated on the assumption that these telecon spreads are stable outlooks.

Ah ... I dunno 'bout that. 1 .. that is so late in the year, by then it may be too late. There is a time lag of ~ 20-days ( minimum..) before a downwelling warm wave begins to mechanically suppress, subsequently stabilize the PV, which --> -AO. Three weeks past March 11 is already into April? By then, the mid latitude R-wave distribution manifold is already seasonally disrupted too much. That means the polar domain events are decoupled(ing) from the mid latitudes - and the former forcing vector goes with it. I have seen those very late events in the catalogue at CPC, found here: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/ ... and the AO's do not respond as coherently as they do when SSWs occurred earlier in the respective seasons. 2 .. even if that is a legit warming event ... is it downward propagating? This question is crucial. If it just bounces around and doesn't demonstrate a downwelling behavior, it's not enough to just exist. This latter aspect is routinely either negated, or not understood. People bandy the SSW's about without doing that determination, too much - not saying that is Mike, but there's not enough there indicating a extrapolation from the onset of that. It's a moot question as to how it effects if it's not doing that behavior if no. 3 .. if the EPS long range for this is anything comparable in performance as the EPS has been in the other scopes of the total planetary system, I'd say the chances of that initial onset of that is iffy at best. I dunno though - maybe it is amAzing just doing this one aspect... All this suggests for me there is a 90% chance that is meaningless.

Agreed.. Not much tolerance for cold my way ... to which snow chances need? Thus, the latter ends up annoying for me as well. That said, I admit to some hypocrisy based in either of two circumstances. The first being, it's an unusual .. call it near or at historic March run, such that the in situ pattern is compensating for seasonal change close to complete proficiency - certainly ...excessively high percentage stoppage. I have never seen that, but March 1956 apparently did that. The second being, a single extraordinary event ... upper bound standard deviation, ... return rate of over a 30+ years. Like 1993... 1888 ... arguably, 1997, probably May 1977. Those are worth the sit through, both educational, exciting, and d-dripping (lol.. making a joke about 'dopamine drip' and addiction to this shit). Anyway, lob one of these at me and I can check back in for a brief stay. The thing about one-and-done March+ bombs and/or assorted rareness, usually within 10 days your shirt sleeves are short again, and actually .. it can be interesting dichotomous affect with open field snow patches at 70 F ... I've seen that only a few times and is also a rare gem. Basically, if the in situ circumstance is significant enough - If the season, by destiny, will not host one of those two circumstances... I'd rather it be 70+ until next mid October. Despite these druthers ... rest assured, whatever happens it will most certainly figure out how to achieve the geometric unlikeliness of getting equal distance from three distinct points amid a perspective plain - essentially ... the ext center away from a circle of joy.

Expecting it. discussed it earlier. Don’t need the weeklies … doesn’t have to happen but wouldn’t surprise me.

Heh, hopefully in CT

hint hint ...I think the suppression idea has merit - I'm not merely bullshitting for fun. We'll see if keeps going, but there are (large systemic synoptic circumstances + trend)/2 = reasons to at least keep that option in mind. If not, it would alter the fact that of those circumstances and reasons - we'll see.

The correction S has begun.... Compare this to the previous fix...that's about 200 mi mash. The next step will be the leading warm frontal suppression as that arm of high pressure N of the St L seaway starts trending .

Meh... that look, at that range, has been all but a permanent fixture on the ens clustered means ever since the hemisphere decoupled from the La Nina model and became a bitter divorce proceeding ...lasting about a month's worth of mid, now into late winter. I mean it could nest an event in there ...but, with other signals now coming into constructive interference with La Nina, it may reconcile differences and have make up sex, giving birth to no more winter. ... Which isn't that far fetched, considering we've sported 80 F in a lot of Feb and Mar going back 7 years of late winter and early springs without those kind of converging signals. Ouch. All I'm saying is take the normal reduction in probability going forward, and slope it a little more badly. Start there, and filter everything through it ..and fortunately for us there won't be any opportunities to use the term blizzard. In fact, right here ... in this moment, I almost hope CC stops that word from every being said again. interesting...

hey ... know what guys ? This 180 hour depiction off the 12z GFS looks remarkably similar to the way the sleet event also looked when it, too, was 7.5 days away... You might recall? Then as we got closer, the GFS tried to argue more snow... but it ended up being a drab rain a 2" sleet fest... Just sayn' ... we may not want to be sold on this thin cutting quite a proficiently as it now looks, because it certainly was negotiable on the last event.

Here's a hotdog post: ... if this days synopsis were to set up and play out a couple months from now...well, maybe sometimes in May, we might be dealing with some thunder - You can tell by hi res vis imagery, lower level SW flow ... and then mid level W-E punching jet over NYS. But yeah... 52 over a snow pack in a broken cloud day on Feb 10 is a sneaky warm day, not doubter

This recent string of it ... it's why I don't engage typically in semantic and or IMBY tinted discussion music when it comes to 'orchestrating' an unbiased accounting of which winter and or storm event(s) within, should rank x-y-z. The one time I try - lighting bolts! hahaha. Also, folks could lighten up a bit, too. Subtleties of nuance in droll humor is gets missed too often for taking this shit too seriously. Yeah yeah. We all got our hot takes man. It's all good while being all bad. Lol. Anyway, the GGEM solution ...ICON for that matter, both are "better" at 500 mb ( NAM perhaps too - ). But one aspect I hate about all of these solutions is the structural orientation of the escape flow at 500 mb along and off the EC, nearing 84 hours .. It is too flat. Not only that, it is fast fast fast... This aspect is a negative interference. I almost feel these 500 mb focuses risk being irrelevant altogether, if that does not start to arc more ridge-lined, with slowing velocities. This was also present - btw - in the modeling, prior to the blizzard in those 3 or 4 days head, too. The GFS was consummately "chasing convection" as it were... But the model was just exposing the negative interference.

Firstly, I do not fit into that ilk of intents and purposes for what I bring this engagement, and never did. But people will have their biases not matter what those are, and to those ... you could just as well say lollypop - they'll hear dog shit. It is what it dealing in an open public thoroughfare like the razor sharp objective fairness of the internet ... Secondly, when I looked over and considered those events, and compared them to other extraordinary events ... Boxing Day and this recent blizzard, they are impressive storms, but their down side regions were larger - the just had more of them. This specific point may be proven otherwise, ...but no one's doing that with empirical data, and I'm too lazy ha.

Straight up English

No ... I did not "downplay" that event. I factually pointed out that it had none pervasive snow results - there were a lot of gaps. I'm sure that in J.Q.'s backyard where 30" resulted, it seems like downplaying as a attitude or some other petty interpretation that took it personally .. but there was nothing personal - it did gap regions.

Like I said ... I don't typically engage in the subjective tenor with this stuff, because of the semantic bullshitness of it. I said, it got it done with the least plausible amount necessary to do so - focus on that. Which it did, sorry! plus, the storm left a lot on the table.

I seldom get involved in this sort of subjective banter but ...in the spirit of commiseration I will add, this is different than 2012 was. That year had considerably fewer circumstantial chances - in a way... you give it prize/recognition to that seasons as a distinct sort of event in itself. This year seems to be achieving startlingly poor return numbers, despite ( or perhaps "in spite" of ) several qualitative contenders. This is where the damnable devil of the comparison resides: in the relativity between the two years. This year, to me, is far in a way the worse "luck" ( for lack of better word). It's kind of like 2012 was the slowest kid in the class. You wouldn't send that poor bloke into a Chess tourney and expect anything better. But this year? This year may take the prize in wasted potential... I remember 1994-1995 as the king piece of shit year, and still did as of this last November. Because again ... 2012 was so unique, it sort of on an appreciative island phenomenon. But this may beat 1994-1995 - we still have time. That year had a bomb that did not disappoint in February. This year had a "blizzard" that for lack of better word, felt like it cheated to earn distinction. It was interesting... doing so with least impact plausible to still get that done. LOL. That's commiseration

Not that anyone else is suggesting otherwise ... I'm gonna need a lot more than those two pieces of shit guidance. The last time either has performed a coup in this range ( 84+) east of Chicago, ... wow, I have to go - personally - back to January 2005 with the NAM. The ICON, as far as I can tell ...never has led. I'm still considering this events as a Looney Tune "Ralph Phillips" special until proven otherwise, and shall remain uninterested.

"Now" ? LOL Glad you've come around J/K

I'm leaning Scott's direction on the next two weeks ... once we get past the Looney "Ralph Phillips" blizzard in the foreground, the winter back's essentially broken. That said, I'm not sure the other side of the "daydream" will exactly feature a balmy escape, either. Firstly, the warm up next week ... might be oversold in the operational model versions. I've seen that in that in the past, where those types of eastern ridges start out as a 5 day long warm balm, suggested some 12 days in advance. Then by day 10, it's a 4 days... interrupted possibly by a BD. Then by day 5 its been whittled down 2.5 days with an accelerated trending cold front. The reason I suspect this type of modulation is in part because the numerical telecon spread in the GEFs isn't really presenting a strongly negative PNA. It's really more like, negative relative to present. It's actually more neutral. Meanwhile, the graphic presentation of the EPS/GEFs means, they don't look very impressive with that ridge in the east, either. They are rather flat and progressive. Secondly, didn't we just go through this back in mid January, ...when the Weeklies and the EPS ... even the GEFs for a little while, all signaled a warm pattern in February; actual temperatures records notwithstanding ... the pattern didn't seem to work out too well. I remember the PNA at CPC (GEF's based) at the time, did show the mean slump negative into the first week of February. But what actually took place was the PNA kept correcting back possitive. So I guess this is verification trend argument. There is a (perhaps) crucial difference now, though. According to the same CPC ( and statistical factual inference, either way..), the emerging Phase 3-4-5-6 side of the RMM is in constructive interference with the La Nina - this combination was not taking place back in mid January's prognostics. So that alters the map a little... If these two can couple and 'force' a more La Nina model hemisphere, then spring is maybe interpretive-split between this easterly biased La Nina vs just La Nina in general.. There's a bit of a signal difference there. Frankly, I find that CC is screwing ENSO up enough anyway, that any reliance is getting iffier, but that's another debate altogether. It's probably a smear between the two. Later on... the hemisphere probably seasonally slows down ( actual geostrophic base line velocities) deeper in March anyway...and when that happens, just like the last several years... I wonder if we don't go through some 'slosh back' blocking for a couple of weeks..

Yup... this is the first day of "solar spring" ... I'm looking forward to exit, personally. I've extolled in the past that once I've 'checked out' on winter? Yuck. It's really a psycho-babble switch for me. No interest in looking back; exceptions need be extraordinary. It is otherwise, very difficult to get me interested. There needs to be a some sort of unusually large, multi-interval standard deviation event to get pulled back in. 1888, perhaps 1956, ... 1993 ... 1997. Maybe 2005, though I recall being both amazed and disappointed, when in a moment, as I parked outside a mini-mart, a gust of gelid wind rose snow off a flat roof at 1:30 pm one afternoon in mid April and momentarily dropped the visibility out car window to frappe. Otherwise, the daily charts are an uninspired tedious drag for me - particularly in this geographical area of Earth, where circumstantially... cold is enabled to "cheat," but seldom cheats enough. I mean, ... that's what 38.4 in drizzle on April 10 in an air mass that smells like frozen salmon balls is, while it's 74 at Albany ... with the aroma of fresh cut lawns.

Little behind in this thread but just got back from gym and this 18z NAM solution extrapolates all pretty like. I'm a little concerned for the leading roll-out ridge being somewhat flat, with integrating higher velocities/geostrophic wind. I'd like that to start curling into more anticyclonic curvature, however ... that may in fact be about to happen if this model were allowed to head out to 96 hours. But it is the NAM so lest we forget, it's probably unfortunate for everyone that it goes out beyond 48 at all.. LOL... anyway - if anything, we don't want this carving back more west than this here...