Typhoon Tip

When was it touted a monster? I dunno - the thread was headlined with these sentiments, "Confidence grows for a moderate to major, low latitude transferring Miller B/ Miller A hybrid then gets foisted up the coast as a "hook low" ... *However* with such a high upside I feel monitoring is necessary.. ... confidence remains less than medium. It's an important storm - how much impact and where, TBD. " Not sure that confers 'monster' but whatever. Frankly nothing's really changed LOL... Think about it, I mean... doesn't that rather aptly describe where we are at right now, still at 96 to 108 hours lead? It's like NBA basketball games... Watch the first 5 minutes and the last 5 minutes - that's all one needs. 'Course, that takes the d-drip journey away, just sayn'.

Funny you mentioned this dude... I have been scratching my head over this ever since it started doing that about 10 minutes after we made this f'n thread. The models insistence with that behavior, jesus... it's like there's some sort of atmospheric magnet with neutron star Gaussian pull, anchored over Utica NY. This storm could be on Mars, the models would find a way to put it west of Albany.

Actually ... common function of vernacular aside, I don't ... because at a glance, LBSW looks like LGBTQ to me, and may as well be a derivative of the movement for all I know because I don't know what what the former means - We make up abbreviations in here that requires a bit of fuller on-board life-saddling commitment to keep track of - I'm not a candidate for linguist.

It's been showing up for quite awhile, and last night the numerical representation of the telecon likes the 19th -24th. There is a bit of flex in the PNA with modestly neg NAO tending modulate back up - It's beyond the free EPS sites vision though, and the individual GEF members are all over the map. Icon hints strongly fwiw Lol

It's kind of an odd deep/total layer evolution... It's attempting to capture and stall for 3 hours over Mt Wachusett... Don't normally see system perform pirouette at that location but the whole of this thing has got its peccadillo

For me there are three main deterministic hurdles: - correctly sampling the current S/W in the N stream passing SE through Alberta - correctly sampling the S/W currently just beginning to nose in off the Washington/Oregon coast(s). - the proficiency of phase ( amount) once they are both ejected into the L/W ... east of 100W through the synopsis Little longer observations: That last point is dependent to some degree on the first two. The larger hemispheric manifold/instruction is that the western +PNAP is subtly increasing, and that is helping to bottom out the trough over eastern mid latitudes. phase roficiency: at one end, full phase. I visualize that resulting in slowing down, deep, massive and powerful. This is the less likely, but not 0 chance. The flow is too fast and that disrupts the kinematic "fusion" if you will. A bigger western ridge expression would tend to start that process - I can't find a run anywhere that's doing that. But I suppose there's time. in the middle you get partial phase. This ... This is [apparently] the preferred idea of the EPS/ Euro. Basically, the lead is what it is ...but the NP S/W borrows in from the NW, and that tips the flow N along the EC ...and anything in said flow goes with it. So in that sense, it is "rotating" around the stress of the S/W's approach ( which is physically keyed into the planetary wave space so is thus having more proxy - ). at the other end, no phase. This would mean the S/W approaching acts more like a 'kicker'. The lead wave gets ejected probably more NE as opposed to N or NNE. It's hard to know where along that spectrum this will be.. but I suspect the large circulation is more confident, ... the interactions within will become so probably when this is more 84 ... 72 lead.

I'm a bit behind, Will ... but for me, the last 3-cycle consolidation trend ( lesser and lesser spread members) of the GEFs mean, is a red flag.

I think he means me, my name is John, and I have mentioned the facets heh... I'm just modestly concerned about this tendency for Pac mechanics to be "over-assessed." There's been a kind of leitmotif over recent years of modeling frankly, sometimes more obvious, other times more nuanced. I don't really think it is done on purpose - that part has been tongue-in-cheek. But rather dependable, one can anticipate losing kinematic ("might") once a coverage has moved from 168 to 72 or so hours. In this case, that matters. The ridge is too far west of climo, but...prooobably that is compensated by the speed of the flow - tending to stretch x-coordinate. I am noticing the original conception of the GFS to phase is out the window. These two waves end up not phasing. That is very important, because as is, the lead is quite powerful, but if the aft approach "kicks" more...it ends up driving that lead toward the NY Bit and not allowing it to move/capture a low toward Upstate NY. This above idea is nicely exemplified by the 06z GFS, with ~ 10 or 15 kts of additional wind momentum in the NP at 84 hours, and I don't really believe the "hints" more coastal commitment are in jest.

Good morning.. back here on page 47 - Obviously the 06z oper. GFS was intriguing, though still needs work - I'm sure that run's already been through the gauntlet so won't press. But noting the 850 mb 0C no long penetrates much NW of Willamantic CT to Logon. Obviously there hints this may be a changing coastal ( models) evolution tho - Fast flow for the loss ..ugh. After all this time and consternation, only 1/3 of the players is now sampled (in theory) but who's doing sounding over the B.C. cordillera. The other aspect are still not, as of 06z, covered in the more physically realized. I am not sure if this factor means as much as it used to, frankly, but.. I am also not convinced that it means nothing at all - particularly in a scenario that appears to be more sensitive than a bum tooth ... Nuances meaning the difference in commitment to coastal, vs climate "iffy" track to ALB. CIP, the S/W careening through the NP at 84 hours is now 10kts more mightily doing so in this 06z GFS run. And it appears to be "kicking" the lead (nesting our storm) more E in total deep layer kinematic positioning. That is triggering deeper convection explosion ( probably ...) and this 06z attempt at surface relo toward ACK may be a response to that. But the situation is in flux I feel, and any more east bump of the whole-scale structuring/synopsis through that 84-108 period here in the E, will result in a fuller commitment to more of a GEF -like position.

This doesn’t strike me as an all at once correction Southeast type of scenario -,it’s probably gonna take about three cycles and it’s not clear how much correction that’s going to be total. During the day tomorrow we’re going to be relaying the first short wave of this duality and see you there, off the Pacific… Then the Nstream component comes in 54 hours out approximately. Again plus there may be modulations going on with that whole negative NAO and stuff going on over the weekend

500mb subtly S-E of the the previous run’s position. Not reflected in the SFC for longitude but slightly so in latitude.

Heh. Like I said a couple pgs back I’m pretty sure the west over compensating likely ended and we start the collapse SE. there’s lots of theoretical/physical arguments why that should be the case etc etc. But we’ll see -it may take some time to get on board

I get event fatigue from time to time …

We’ve likely seen the farthest extent of the west “overcompensation” and ensuing will be a collapse back SE. How much … ? I think the low-level cold air that’s being delivered on Saturday is probably not getting properly resolved at this particular range in the models. So whatever happens I would probably stall any kind of warm sector intrusion - that would be my educated guess for 132 hour system. Whether that means holding on to snow longer holding on a mix longer going over to some ice or just being a 32° cold rain after front white wall, notwithstanding The other area of sensitivity for me revolves around what is going on with the NAO in Friday system as wave brakes and it sits there I don’t understand how that thing is going to pull out to the north that readily if the NAO really does flip signs, which is what the models have been selling the last day Plus the things I talked about earlier in the day regarding what’s really going to get relayed off the Pacific Ocean starting tomorrow and then again at 60 hours. Those are some leap out reasons why I said I am by no way sold on any of those positions in New York State

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..