Typhoon Tip

It may have resulted flat at the surface but the 'fun' of that was directed for Will... we've been discussing the N/stream sensitivity to this whole thing, so the stepped improvement in that regard was what we were looking for - 'boom' was in deference to that. 'boom, there we go..'

boom

Actually ...I wrote more into that post - check it out ...

Not for where it counts ... only NYC where it is deserved .. hahah. J/K No but I wouldn't worry about that relative to that solution 1, the CMC has a warm BL bias at this range; 2, no chance with a high that strong pearled out antecedent to the cyclone approaching from the SW, would it be that warm in NYC...

Wow... gives this nerd goose bumps to see that modeled in the NAM ( perhaps vindication.. ) Like Will and I were just discussing, Ray and even George.. In his George's defense, he did say this: "I am convinced that the models are underestimating how much the northern energy will dig, and that the models will continue to trend more and more amplified. ..." - although he did outline "why," which might have helped his case - just sayn' Anyway, I was discussing earlier this morning that the arc over the ridge in the west as sensitive in this, and that's precisely why this NAM solution digs so much power over the Dakotas - ... I mean more so than previous, in total. You can see when toggling that the ridge is pushing more boldly into the Alaskan sector comparing 54 hour to previous, and that is dislodging more N/stream mechanics and sending it SSE. It is interesting the RGEM did this too...

Yeeeah but ... ( you know this ) the 06z was "better" than the 00z - I think there's a trend here that's gotten rather coherent. Here's the thing, we've seen these coastals this year trend, en masse, in then back out - trying sanity! I mean, usually when the ballast of an entire f'ing ens system starts moving a given way, that's a signal? This years been somehow denying that conventionality it would seem. Excluding the possibility that this is metaphysical more than physical ( LOL ), I like the idea that the N/stream is becoming more coherently factored - I mean for storm enthusiasts. I really think this situation is going to need that, but it has work to do. The UKMET is intriguing -

Oh absolutely ... heh, previous was tongue-in-cheek of course.. Yeah, the southern aspect is real an ain't goin' away. It's a matter of whether this n-stream can be significantly strong enough to 'torque' the total circulation manifold, such that whatever comes of down south, gets foisted ...captured...blah blah. agreed- that's not an M-b deal.

Ha ha .. the irony there? if that southern weirdness there in the Gulf proves to be faux convective fakery, that actually might result in a Miller B hahahaha. Hopefully that happens - with no actually logic conveyed that shows that was interpolated from clad meteorological reasoning and experience combined, that happens anyway. Let's do it!

Could be a last hurrah storm for this pattern ... regardless of what form and where. Or perhaps last of the season, given to the lateness. I mean there's likely to be a cyclogen processing SE to off the coast ... it's a matter of amplitude and position. In a definitive era where hockey-stick climate change is real and happening, and we've been verifying in hard data, exceptional warm oddities to mid latitudes across the mid continent February and March's with increased frequency over the last 10 years ... if one is objective they should at minimum begin to wonder if it may be harder to return to winter in 2022, that it was in 1956, past the ides of February with strengthening constructive interfering MJO wave over a La Nina footprint. Yikes! -PNA is gaining super synoptic support. ... In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if this storm came back to at least moderately impact NYC-PWM, and while we are enjoying the d-drip we are also ignoring the 70F on the charts for 4-6 days later - we've been through that drill in the spring, early or not. Regarding this event: Seems there is a 'race' ... Changes are positioning on the starting line over the Pacific, but like unruly competitors ...they may be jumping the gun in the models, causing false starts and forced loading to bully into the west? They could be rushing the -PNA, causing the ridge of the +PNA surge (presently occurring) in the foreground to dismantle too soon. Anyway, those really are starting to exert on the Pacific relay into western N/A ... in about 4 to 6 days. That is when the ridge over western N/A, the one that surged a bit now and is/was modeled to bump east, needs to maintain it's +PNA -like structure in order for the transitively force the east coast trough depth... Looking over all ens means I could... I suggest there is some sensitivity wrt to how much the N-stream can/will dive S through the Lakes, determined more than less on the N extent of the western N/A heights arcing into western Canada. If that gets sent south, we may be in business for better capture. I elaborated at this yesterday - I don't feel much has changed. I think this next 1.5 days starting now on this 12z cycle ... through early Friday, will clarify that interactivity up there and what is ultimately delivered. I give 50/50 for more or less, either way at this point.

It may be a "slow cook" arrival in the runs ( n'yuk n'yuk). Seriously, .. the Pacific may be more poised to enter a large scale mode change than is presently being sensed out by the daily model renditions. Time will tell if such a modulation will happen, or if it is a red herring.

Tomorrow looks somewhat 'napey' ....first of the year. I don't really see 'DSD'.. The flow is SW/WSW ... But, with the open sky over a narrow sfc ridge, and the sun now getting warmer... could be an intoxicating hour of faux mild-like feel out there. Thursday looks like intervals of clouds and too breezy ...

Huh... I think we're being a little harsh - George, sets himself up good and proper for excoriation ( heh ...wow -), but there's worth-while observation still out there re this. But, the fact of the matter is, the general flow scaffold is still there. This can still emerge. I don't personally know how to tell if that emergence will or won't take place... I would presently lean no - but that doesn't mean shit. One run looks better, I can see that happening just as well. Like I outlined earlier, the critical window - for me - will be about 3.5/4 days from now, as the ridge 140 W repositions to 110 W.. That adjustment may send a correction toward more amplitude into the eastern CONUS when that happens - and can emerge in time. Assuming the former does. But that much of it is higher confidence. What happens on the other side of the ridge movement has some upside variability to it. That's the objective perspective from where I'm sitting - seeing as anyone gives a shit what I think. Lol... That is the best I can offer George's ambition to getting us one step closer to ending the world in the 3rd Geological Snowball Earth

Mmm... the legitimacy of it may be a bit subjective to the observer here, but VDII is real. It's just not at the moment looking very promising - granted... But D5-7 still has ample time for better reveal.

Can't you like ... pm George, and white glove influence him to redraft something more representative of present signals/reality? god - It kind of ruins it if we want to be 'serious' and apply Met objectivity and substance, when it sounds like b-movie horror tropes

For muse only - the 12z ICON arrived quite significant+, for HFD-PWM and Phin country

I just gave a run-down above - you wanna move it over there? or - It's premature to start a thread in this particular mise en science/leading 'feel' ..but, I think that thread's title being much more conservative might help but -whatever

Re Valentine's Day ( VDII ?) Short version: I see room for growth in the runs, ensuing. At just about any time through about D4.5 ... this may emerge with more prominence in the runs. If we get to D5 and that has not happen, pull the plug. Long version/philosophy: The EPS behavior over the far E. Pacific/near of the West Coast of mid latitudes is critical - I'm thinking other's must have cited this. I'm not expecting this to be any kind of unique insight. Starting 00z, both it and the GEFs have a modest positive non-hydrostatic height anomaly stretched W-E of 140W/~45N ... Rather abruptly, the next 24 to 48 hours sees that region flare a rather robust positive anomaly, helping to force an arced flow extending to 55 N and concomitantly, ...forcing the flow over ~ 110W/50N to tip into the NW trajectory. This continues onward through D3... That's when things get complicated/interesting... Between D3 and 5, this above ridge progresses/biases its way to the 120W longitude by 120 hours. D5/6 is when we would tend to see a constructive interference feedback on amplitude ... if one is going to exist or make use of this scaffolding behavior, carving S through the NP into the MV...etc... etc. This is why D4 ~5 are critical windows. If that has not begun to happen prior to that range ( 00z through Fri)... heh. The numerical layout of the GEFs telecon is tepidly supportive .. very modest suggestion here: That may be okay.... The blizzard recently was also led by this sort of flatter presentation of PNA disturbance. Graphical reliance helps bridge the uncertainty as to whether anything at all would actually be there... heh. I mean we should be doing that anyway - I admittedly have relied on just one or the other when one or the other's signal became overwhelming...blah blah. Anyway, it is noted this above GEF -based ... it is not the EPS. The EPS curve may be more representing... The 00z/08 mean of the EPS dailies also now closes off a modest low E of Hat on D7, which is a better performance/fix compared to 24 hours ago. So a trend may be emerging... Given to the above aspects, there's room here to monitor. That, and fact that this is still 7 days away, notwithstanding.. I mean, not allowing the erstwhile disenchanted rigor of the season cloud one's objectivity ... very difficult I deserve a pat on the back LOL. I gotta say... it's been tough. Every system we threaded for, has worked out to be a legit system delivery large doses of disappointment - in general.

Re the MJO part of the discussion... CPC's weekly publication/update cites, "• Given the increasing likelihood that the MJO constructively interferes with La Niña, an atmospheric response typical of La Niña is expected across the mid-latitudes of the North Pacific and North America during the latter half of February." This is true for 3-4-5-early 6, RMM wave spacing. The interesting aspect for me is, what form of La Nina forcing will this coupling reenforce? 1 ... the La Nina has been rather decoupled from the La Nina base-state now dating back several weeks. So, the idea there - when including that logic ... - would suggest that with a new MJO wave momentum/dispersal forcing emanating from the Indian Ocean, we might see the La Nina actual atmospheric mode "reconnect" ...or couple back up ..etc... In which case the pattern down stream of the Pacifc ...eventually, the Americas, responding. That would take time, first of all - hence, 'latter half of February.' Secondly, this could be good or bad for latter/late winter shenanigans. 2 ... there are two La Nina floor plans. One might show some statistical bias for late season blocking. One ends winter early and send Forsythia buds cracking by late Feb thru early March. Which form would the MJO re-enforce this time? The MJO and La Nina relationship are not the only partners in this ... The reason the atmosphere passed through the mid season decoupled state, I believe, may not have been noise. If that persists .... than CPC's constructive interference ( or perhaps weakly so ) may contain and not reflect in the R-wave distribution very well.

Fast flow characteristic that's dominated the seasons since 2007 causing that ... but no one's asking me lol

Post -mortem on this event: I'm thrilled to see the CNE and some of the NE kingdom snowed over night ... that, combined with the quantitative totals of rain and/or snow overall, combined with the successful track of cyclogenesis as it curled on passed to the E, saves this effort from a total failure in my mind. If grading, I'd give a C .. C- But I'm sure those that did not receive any snow, while parking the temperature at 32 and decimals, and .75" of liquid, would go ahead and send it and me to the gallows. It occurs to me ... I did not exactly mention "snow" or snow totals when starting this thread. Having said that, I would be dishonest if I attempted to weasel out of some of that culpability - there is guilt there... The problem - I believe - comes down to an "anecdotal climatology" argument, one that I quite honestly did not remember going into this effort. That being ... since about 15 or so years ago, I began to notice a warm verification tendency with mid range- modeled marginal scenarios. Prior to that approximate threshold, verifying 'isothermal' 0C seemed almost dependable when leading synoptic metrics were observed: such as, 535 to 540 dm hydrostatic heights; cyclogenesis through an 850 mbs thermal layout in the 0 to +3 C. The other day I referred to this as "marginal+" vs "marginal-" The reason for that tendency switch? It could be just improvements in modeling technology. It could be related to climate change. It could be dumb luck... Who knows... But I do know that when I composed this thread, I had marginal- in mind, and now in retrospect I feel that's a bit of a blunder to have completely dropped the ball on this above facet.

Which would be an interesting trick considering the atmosphere has apparently divorced it's self from the La Nina ocean ... now dating back three weeks. ... according to CPCs analysis -

almost wonder if there's a weak convergence down there... the sfc pressure has that SE suggestion with the winds, but would slow in the interior where there is deeper situated cold. getting a little bit of a 'pile up' there. also, wouldn't the growth region of this snow be relatively low right now. I don't believe this current activity is part of that low passage later on..

I think the break point here is gong to be the amplitude of the 850 mb low ... We're obviously cold enough ( for snow interests ..) here, initially. But what's happened in the guidance up to this point has been a paltry structure at best, at that level. A stronger one would cut off the SSW flow aloft ...stopping the 850 mb from warming so much. I'm not sure if this system's warm extends much higher in the atmosphere ( but I haven't admittedly checked - just going by the feel of it... lol). Anyway, I like the short term tendency to torque the thermal field there, ENE of Cape Hat ( 'jbenedet' ) ... Maybe there is more structure trying to take shape. Who knows...

I dunno. That looks like wet snow W-NW of KBOS looking over these FOUS intervals.

That in and of itself is not that crazy to me. I’ve seen short duration do this before in the past and it already did earlier this year. One might recall… It was 0 to 9 above and 24 hours later we had a rain storm. But I think that warm layer at 850 is not exceptionally intrusive - they’re calling it a torch. I don’t see it as a torch. I see it +3 …all we need is for this thing to have a little bit more vertical velocity and heavier precipitation and that would become isothermal around 0C. I also think that the 925 is gonna bust too warm. Could be wrong we’ll see