Typhoon Tip

If nothing else it underscores the instability/ poor continuity ( perhaps "dubious continuity" as in, deceptive ) that really going on with this thing. Trend is by also "discontinuous" ... so it can also be indicative of 'changeability' in future runs as a flat consideration.

It's true/understood your sentiment there... I mean, in a vacuum if one saw that they'd be calling the national guard ... That's actually a K.U. check-list chart there. It has the 24 hour antecedent deep CAA in New England, with exit S/W... The look of higher PP N...

heh... if the GEF mean ( relative to this one run cycle ) is really "off shore" we blue bomb almost to the coast.

You remember that ..lol... like me, you must be old

Yup ... because you want it - muah hahahaha...

Just think ... in alternate universe theory, there is one that is identical to this one, with one and only one, singular difference being ... The JMA is the "Euro" and the Euro is the "JMA" Man... that 120 to 144 hour JMA solution from 12z ...why can't that model be all the golden ballz

How about raining at 32 ... when the thermal momentum quanta bounce, keeps it liquid despite being freezing...

Yeah...I mentioned that to Wiz' that you said you were frustrated - end of story... lol - Look, I'm not numb to it. I'd like to see/experience a really good storm and have it be the stuff of cryo-coke legend. I almost suspect this winter is a one ...maybe two, even less likely, a three and done type of year. It's not scientific? But it feels that way... It's like, what we get out of this year in that regard, is going to happen in a like a single two week stint, otherwise, it's going to be a speed soaked sheared out shit-show. The -PNA in Dec didn't help, either - only added to the sting...but I also feel that we've been dealing with some of that broadly scaled, neg/destructive interference regardless of ENSOs, or intraseasonal index modes...et al, spanning enough years now that heh - no faith or reason why it will suddenly stop... I don't ...whatever, this storm is going to perhaps go down as nailing a bigger system, with no f'ing dividends to show for it. Hahaha. man, what a CD

well...the immediate next sentence, "*However*, lacking an alternate eye-candy, that may simply be an artifact of there not - at present ... - being a physically available solution in that space.." means there may not be any other solution; the physicality of the period is what it is. I mean there's some speculation there, too. But the mean is not likely to 'match the operational' ...not beyond 120 hours. Having said that.. uuuusually the the weight of the ensemble mean at 144+ will win out over any one member, including the operational - in the absolute sense. In that sense, one may feel 'teased' here. There are times, however, where the higher resolution "physical equation endowed" operational versions win going the other way. It's entirely possible, this is one of those occasions. I still would like to see if a 'weaker' relay at 24 hours .. then again at 72 hours, from off the Pacific might cause this to modulate going forward.

Nice! good one

Obviously the present "attitude" toward ens' is rooted when/where the members don't happen to show an alternate solution that is consistent with what people want to see - preferably, and important storm that is more snow than rain. Not complicated *However*, lacking an alternate eye-candy, that may simply be an artifact of there not - at present ... - being a physically available solution in that space. I think I was miss-interpreting the sentiment not just by him, but shared elsewhere, that they were more "technically" less than useful. Lol. - he said he's just frustrated. We know we're capable of rationality - but ... this is an important storm, but folks were sort of invested - I suspect - in the snowier ideas, because the runs two days ago had that? So, we decide to commit to a thread... It's far more success in forecasting for that alone, but unfortunately, these sort of vicissitudes come with the territory. It's like what Scott said many pages back - going to the casino is a sure bet, not what goes on there. Wah wah wahhh. There's that ole aspect of this particular forum culture being pretty singularly guided by snowfall expectations.. Just gotta know the audience and roll with it. So, it's understandable. A low going from the the Del Marva ... west of Albany is going to yank some chains. But as long we're on the subject... I really hope we break out of this winter mid next month... I have been contemplating at times, how we've had like ho man ... 5 separate occurrence of warm anomalies in Febs and Mars, over the last 6 or so years, where temps were 70 to 85. Not a single afternoon either. They were book ended by some 3 to 5 day stints of +15 total departure days. I'm wondering if one of these years instead of the door cracking open, it opens all way and stays that way. And just have 10 month summer ( expressively speaking...). There's a minority of us in here that would think that would be really interesting..

Spirit of commiseration: ... -1 was the low, now 38 with melting snow. Face Palm Swing palm into face ...I dunno. Maybe this is another in the countless micro nuanced examples of CC at work. Like, 110 mph pushed fire storms on Dec 30 in Colorado. I guess that's bigger than a nuance though. But today for my location, this is the biggest diurnal change observed between last spring ... thru the summer and fall. Usually at this time of year ..that sort of diurnal change is forced by warm boundary passage. But this is doing it in open dry air, without a boundary - at least according to WPC. That's an example of a 'nuance' in this sense. Weird little oddities that don't matter, but there are multitudes ...countless, happening all around. It's like not usual, but not typical, happening a lot.

Why are they ens useless?

You know .. it's interesting. You can see why the GEFs mean has been east of the operational version - even tough they are both trended west over the last 3 cycles. The 00z EOFs have a really highly concerted mode shit where the NAO goes from a starting point basically now at +1 SD, to -1 by D6. Total mode change of -2 SD. Meanwhile, looking at the operational GFS... the graphics don't appeal as emphatic about that mode change. Basically, it's parting company with its own ens mean wrt to that factor. I think some of this whole ordeal is sensitive to the westerly, vs neutral, vs success of the NAO actually doing all that. It can force things S. I also believe that 24 hrs, then again 72 hrs, are very critical windows for how these waves interact down stream. 24 hours there's a relay off the Pac... I annotated that earlier. At 72 hours, that when the N stream comes in - neither of these features are actually within the physically realized grid. It's unfortunate that the flow continues to speed up as ext ranges come near, while events in the flow, tend to dampen. Both those two sort of like, 'built in' corrections are really turning this winter ( and the last several for that matter - ) into a tedious bore.

What? How/why is "look at it, please" off-putting? I'm just encouraging the reader to so -

Trust me... I showed you the S/W are stronger in the GFS - look at it, please. Now, that might work out that way..sure. But, I have reasons ( also pointed out) why that could be a subtle, albeit important bias. And, they tend to correct toward less when the relay happens off the Pacific. We'll see.. But, I'm not sold on those overnight runs man. no way.

It's not even true, period. Outside slider whacks mid California, spins up Colorado low, exits through the Lakes = false Never seen that - garbage. it's not or cannot be construed as a "rule" if it's violated and broken pretty routinely. Clipper, comes in through N Dakota route, exits the MA; as a bomb that clips New England? still = false; it exited the MA

'coming through' heh Just trying to extend to objectivity there - not saving anyone's day.

I just went through 7 pages of this thread in deference to other's, thought/opinions/ analysis... and arriving at the end, I have seen almost 0 analysis at all. Not one deeper read into the very modeling that is 'triggering' the vitriol. No history/performance, no bias applications... No comparatives to other guidance, weighting those biases ... back and forth, whereby to synthesize valid, objective - I mean nothing. And, saying, 'x y z model looks like an inland track,' only, does not constitute substantive analysis. LOL - we get it that there's not enough sugar in your porridge. There are lots of reasons to be suspect of this last 12 hours of "unsavory" trends in the guidance. But I'm not sure writing out in laborious detail - which would be necessary to really convey 'the secrets' - ...is there an audience available for that objective analysis? I'll try to keep it brief, an extraordinary difficult undertaking from this particular poster hahaha. But this is long anyway. 1 .. as I have elaborated in frustrating tenor in the past, there is a tendency in most guidance ( particularly the GFS cluster ...) to modestly, almost insidiously over assess S/W mechanics being relayed off the Pacific ocean, over western Canada. This is an aspect I have noticed as a kind of "reversal of fortune," ever since the infamous "Boxing Day Storm" of 2010, when a massively under-scoped relay resulted in one of the more fantastic short range corrections in modern technology of the field. We went from veritably nothing, to a blizzard warning, with < 36 hours leading time for coverage/public awareness. Curiously ... it was on the charts at D 5...7, but then was lost for enough time that even hardened weinershnitzels had moved on with life. Oops. That's my conspiracy rant for the day ... I don't like subtle under the radar, insidious coincidences, and that shift seems connective there. Someone's spiking the Pacific punch, because ultimately ... forecasting is about protecting the public - that's the primary charge/responsibility ..Not entertaining the fringe psychosis of this engagement LOL. So, over-assess = not getting caught with pants down. The reversal of fortune is that we no longer get the goose in the "positive" direction; more so... there are subtle back-offs and ever since, overall, why we consummately see extended range systems invariably, damped by processing when handling D7's --> D4's --> D1's Whether this is done deliberately or not, there is definitely that tendency where the models routinely over-magnify the significance of events out in time. Why does that matter here? 2 .. I was comparing the 00z Euro with the GFS... The GFS is subtly, perhaps crucially, more amplified with two pieces of key mechanics, set to relay off the Pacific about 30 to 36 hours from now: This is important, because these two features, actually sneakily phase while descending over and through the Rockies, while the backside of them (ridge) bulges some, with the advent of a +PNAP tendency. That feeds back on a more intense lower TV total wave space. The GFS then conserves it's own creation, with a stronger initial cyclongenesis that circumstantially curls NW with those climate-ugly paths out in time. 3 .. the actual phase that was more visible to the eye, is not even relayed off the Pacific as of these annotations above ( 54 hours from 00z's cycle). The feature comes in; it, too, may also be suffering from amplitude fixing by the GFS - OR - because it is assessing the lead wave space with these features above, ..that may "blind" itself from seeing the main N/stream wave that is coming on board ~ 72 hours. If these lead features combine and are thus "too strong," they'll resist the more important phasing ... ironically, that was being constructed when this was D7 This is too long even for me.. I think we need to wait until these aspects above are actually a part of the physically materialized sounding, because if there is an over-assessment of their "weight" in the flow ( regardless of whether that is intended or accident), this is a situation where that might backfire and cause a problem. This lead gunk could end up weaker, ...even in the ECMWF. A weaker lead throws less ridging ahead, feeds back less, and ends up more E, for a later N/stream phase.

I'm significantly behind in this thread .. back here on a page 15 but this caught my eye. Those two panels are quintessential/ ideal for maximizing cold profile storm type - i.e., unusually large snowfall result. - just throwin' the snow enthusiasts a bone, but not making that up. That's a rather intense easterly 850 mb anomaly, running under 925 mb N flow, most assuredly under a whopper 700mb frontogen UVM banding... Nuts, but it may be passe by the time I've taken in data, tru

It may “want” to lol. But this really isn’t a cutter it’s slipping between climate tracks which is part of the red flag for me. I just think it’s another peregrination … likely to be a week full of them until probably Thur High confidence for an event … probably a significant one, but we are still going to be have to be quibbling over details and unfavorable tracks at times.

Welp it’s five days away so whatever… Too tired to do any kind of meaningful mass field analysis to figure it out but just a scratch stab it looks specious to me due to continuity with the upstream aspects. Doesn’t mean much.

Yeah I was just looking at the 2 m with high teens interior/N

Nah … That thing triple points underneath. But it’s so typical for the Gfs to do this - it takes an oddball solution …everybody complains about it and it makes it even more odd on the next run. Doesn’t look like it’s very climate friendly it’s trying to fit a low between a lakes cutter and a coastal commitment.

What was happening all along is that the GFS was using the northern stream to push this thing further east before it came up north so the phasing was happening over New England and so forth …but in this run we noticed at around 96 hours, far less northern stream coming in so this thing is just sort of I don’t know why it’s doing what it’s doing but it’s not getting in northern stream assistance