Typhoon Tip

I suspect depth of -PNA trough has more to do with the superposition of the longer term La Niña occurring with a normal intraseasonal pattern forcing from Asia through the Date Line Those would be in a powerfully constructive interference in tandem … The HC expansion is a whole scale base line state of increased(ing) hgts within the deep subtropical latitudes. It doesn’t modulates patterns in the same way as it’s evenly distributed as lower latitude canvas over which these other intermediate (pattern) and longer termed (La Niña) aspects take place. That’s the present papered facets on HC expansion. I have personally advanced hypothesis that its increasing the gradients at mid latitudes during the winters; so in an indirect sense … faster flow can affect Rossby waves distribution and so forth but even if that were the case and that could be proven … it wouldn’t stop what’s going on with a PNA trough now - that’s (again) likely an intraseason pattern constructively interfering with longer term La Niña tendency, two things overwhelming everything else -probably

Yeah... it shows the sensitivity - it seems endemic to fast flows to do this. It's almost as though a more standard flow rate is more resistant to change

For what it's worth the GEF based telecon spread is cold UNfavorable from the AO/NAO, and given that they share domain space, and appear to be moving in tandem, might be a strengthening argument that they are coupled into the same forcing. That would materialize as a negative height anomaly tending to encompass/ lap over both. My guess is between the NE Canada. However, the PNA ...as others have surmised by graphics, is concertedly entering a modal change from -2 SD with some members even modestly positive by as near as D10. Note, we don't need to have the mode diametric before restoring events begin taking place,... If by indirection, this might be cross-guidance "nodding" ... ( at least ) wrt to some of the Euro products. I'm also not sure the EPO won't pop negative either, given to the EAMT relay way out there. It seems that could happen at any time in the next 2 weeks.

Well... compounding factors... There's no one-size-fits-all index controlling the number of inches we're not getting, but are taking LOL But I completely jive with the bold, sure. Any -NAO biased over the western limb of the domain space .. yup, that can overwhelm by compressing the heights south through the Lakes and Mid Atlantic. That will speed up the flow. Remove that and the flow is still fast, though. It has been... regardless of solar, ENSO, PDO ... dogs and cats living together.

Well ... we can't think of the Earth system as having a silver bullet factor - like the HC is causing all this, or the La Nina is causing all that... The climate system is an on-going cocktail of influences... some more at times, given the favorable setting to act. That's A B, the compression has been an issue across all winters now going back a decade, the majority of times, and that was regardless of ENSO state.

I don't do that. When it comes up...such as Will's ( correct) observation, that there is blocking at high latitudes and the oddities in the results here...etc, then it becomes relevant as any possible aspect of speculation. I don't go out of my way, and I can prove that. I don't really care if folks accept this gunk, or pin it on me...? But "everything" in the above context, is bullshit just the same.

Really ... this is entirely the whole package of cause-and-effect circuitry of the Archembault paper. Yup. Status quo means balance, thus rest. Something imposes change to a system, the balance is off ... in order to get back to balance = storm. That's it ... That is why all modes --> modality, regardless of whether it involves NAO this ... PNA that... WPO this ... EPO that.... If these are in stasis, and something disrupts the status quo ... = storm. I'm just entering that the H.A. stuff is applicable to all of nature, really ..certainly to the nature of weather restoring.

I remember you and I having this conversation last year, when this HC stuff was young. You were asking me about the 'effects' of it during the respective ENSO climates? I remember speculating that it may be more of dimming factor for El Nino's. The reasoning was entirely intuitive, mind you. HC and it's effect manifold is all still on the discovery table anyway. The papers/climate I've read about it seems to be open to debate... That said, the La Nina is a stronger easterly trade scenario. And HC expansion has an easterly trade mass, regardless. ... So it it is easy to see where I'm going with that. El Nino on the other hand enforces a break-down in the trade momentum... etc etc --> warming waters moving E across the Basin in the generic sense. That would be intrinsically in conflict with said HC momentum/assumption. ( again agian again ..we are juggling 'tendencies', not absolutes - people read this stuff ( if ever lol ...), and tend to think big ).

I know this is annoying mantra at this point... but, imho the HC shit is imposing. It manifests as greater gradient --> speed saturation of the flow. Basically then situating blocking over the top, which intrinsically is a wave signal from the N forcing the jets south, means those are competing forces. I think what we are seeing in all this 'destructive/negative interference' is at minimum, partially related to that competition. Just a furthering concept: CC has added 3 to 5 dm to the total integral of the tropical/sub-tropical Walker circulation since 1980 - according to survey/climate papers back in 2018 - can't imagine that's gone the other way since... And that may seem subtle, but it's like with the sun? It's like where .1% dip in total radiative output of old sol, has a big response in the atmosphere here on Earth. There's a relativity to it, because that .1% at the sun's end becomes a rather large issue for a tiny world that is sensitive.

Well yeah… I was trying to throw central New England folks a bone. Funny thing is if the Gfs corrects another tick like the one it just did then we’re probably getting ice down to the pike And west of Methuen. lol. Jk

Look at how narrow those fields are. Testament to compression I guess This whole b-c passage is kind of like a pseudo H.A. correction event. The lower latitude ridge is really in process of progressing east - so there’s action at synoptic inflection, so to speak. It’s just is getting crowded by the eager trough arriving. One can wonder if the trough slows down just a little bit and timing am I actually open the door for a little bit more of a New Jersey model type low.

I still think that’s over baked with that follow up southern trough thing… The thing is … it can happen. Yup but there are more reasons to be suspect of that. Ridging in the southeast is one but the other… How many times have shortwaves been over amplified by the GFS in that time range. It did pay off in the last system remember the euro actually had it no event till 36 hours out even though it turned out to be crap and rain and whatever, GFS it saw it first. I’m really more interested in the lead stuff trending colder like Phinny and I were tracking.

I don’t think that southern stream feature has much of a chance frankly unless it ends up correcting much more powerful. Not impossible but less likely perfect reason to have it go ahead and happen where it’s just strong enough lol. Otherwise hgts are so high over adjacent southeast that as a it comes in it’s just going to compress the flow/speed shear will absorb it.

Don’t forget the winter between April 11 and June 5th …

But isn’t that bad for soil chemistry the following farming season? I thought frozen ground was better for keeping nitrogen closer to the surface… Which would be particularly useful in a year where there’s less snow because snow is the nitrogen fix; so if you have less of it you don’t want it percolating down deep below root levels. It’s one of those things where I kind of understood it but didn’t dig very deep when I read about it in all honesty

Plus I wonder … you can also get an initiation of upslope snow happening pretty quick when cold air floods in and pushes a wet airmass up the topography etc. ANAs are mid-level mechanics though where there is still strong jet running parallel to the boundary over pass-through …. pulling moisture back across the boundary interface usually some 8000 feet up. Other aspect to your point is that your higher elevation up there may allow the precipitation actually make it to the ground because a lot of times what’s going on is that the models are not seeing evaporation going on below the fall column under the ANA area so they got fallacious QPF

Yeah I’m not convinced we ignore that down into central NE until 72 hrs no. Could end up a longer duration transitional ptype event. I gotta think you’re snowing in NNE above that boundary because that’s pretty cold near by southern QUE/SE Ontario so the thermal gradients would be packed.

I don’t really think of them as real possibilities… more like “placeholders“… Kind of like the models are making reservations in case they change their mind. I think I’ve seen one successful ANA verify. I’ve come to find that more often they either evolve into an actual cyclones or they go the other way and just become sharp cold fronts

You know you guys … it’s not as far fetched as we think that ice and/or mix could creep toward S VT/NH over the 1st .. 2nd - talking just prior to the ANA/frontal wave the GFS is pimping. some guidance hitting again at weightier high pressure setting up and with that type of flat open characteristic of the overall … if cold gets underneath it would be back built …. We’re not there yet but there’s both hints and time

Welp ... I've gone and done it. I've managed to earn myself what in all objective sense of it should as well be construed as a well-deserved and legitimate idiot check from moderation. Ah, a warning - Just waded into the wrong sub-forum, and let probably what is regular fair in that Off-Topic realm, pot shots masquerading behind a thin veil of congeniality, get the better of me. The only difference was ...I chose a direct approach - heh.. enter imagination here ( ). Funny thing is... if you cross that congeniality line too far and earn one of these warnings, apparently you can't do anything else until you acknowledge the warning. That's fine ...I understand the necessity to make sure the point is driven home, but to excoriate one, when the there is just as much at fault and doesn't get reprimanded, merely because they didn't use the c* word ( hahaha... I know, I got no excuse - ), ...effectively condones their behavior. I guess that's why they call it Off Topic? Cheers -

Good question ... let me know, too, when you find a 'free' site that does that.

yeah I see the edit - ha... Happens to me all the time. Anyway, the GEF - based PNA is struggling out of it's semi-persistent nadir beyond D7 ... The EPS computation 'probably' does so too, just eye-ballin' the graphics over the hemisphere .. .heights tending to rise over the S/W in both the EPS and GEF means. That would be step one in reducing the destructive interference east of Colorado. As far as these wild S/W's driving misty warm sectors ... those events may also succumb to pancaking. We could get one to work out - so to speak ... - for mutilating the system into more of mooshed over-running deal. Problem is...these S/W out there D5+ are over-magnified. Then they have to get corrected to reality anyway... Add that sort of hidden trend, with the above facets... it's not quite as clear that a Lakes cutter has to happen. It could also be a matter of perspectives - these could just turn out to be frontal passages in general. It seems the 06z GFS has enough S/W power conserved to clip SE zones with snow... so, that's one example where S/W wins a bit.

Meh.. there's a little hyperbole to that "sentiment" of nothin' vs somethin' Yes yes, of course, it's about more vs less. Although, if you wanna get assholier than thou and strict about it, I got nothin' last night from a very highly negate interaction of sending a modest S/W, ...through and over top a HUGEly powerful ridge ... So, there are extremes that can approach absolute in either direction. But the point is approaching sure. And the wave mechanical balancing stuff is true though.

Yeeah, re luck versus pattern. We have observed a semi-persistent, massive ridge arc imposing roughly IA-NS ( Nova Scotia) along mid latitudes. Actually rather remarkably fixated at that. The physics of taking shorter wave-length atmospheric perturbations over the rainbow ( haha) ... tends to cancel out storms. You really can add the two wave equations and divide by two... ( sign(S/W) + sign(L/W)) ... divided by 2 If the quotient you get is negative, you get nothin' ... If the quotient is positive, you get somethin' ... Depending how positive(negative) is related to how much you either get, or gets taken away. What we've just seen in the last 2 ... 3 days has been negative, commonly referred to as 'destructive interference' in the vernacular of the science. You could really watch this happen over 12 to 18 hours as light to moderate expression over the eastern Plains/southern Lakes got gobbled up by the negative quotient of the wave arithmetic of present S/W attempting to negotiate with an asshole L/W. lol That's not luck, if they 'know it is there.' Because one who knows and understands the basic wave mechanical interactivity ...Junior in college level dynamics stuff above, would have predicted less occurring. If they did not know that logic above, and just predicted or thought, or wanted ... or "felt" more for other mentality ... they might be inclined to say they were unlucky That's all it is... whether one is right or wrong, without knowing.

Meh... it's all simpler than that. Luck, is by definition, a more or less favorable outcome based upon probability. Forecasting is intrinsic to that - it is by virtue of the science/definitions of "predictability," intrinsically thus based upon probabilities. Not sure why that facet/logical scope escapes anyone. Looking at it more complex: I wonder if people are getting confused over narrowing the amount of reliance one has upon probability. If one is wholly reliant on probability, they may get rich...they might not. That is the extend of complexity to that model, though. Done. There is a kind of Relativity in probability and luck. If one is looking at a system and is predicting a future state of said system based upon observably changing components/analysis, in real time, they are relying on what they see - that is the one and done. However, there is a dense of array of forces that effect all systems in Nature, that cannot be readily perceived in that way. They more vs less impose changes to outcomes. If so happens to be on the more side, the "odds" ( i.e., luck ) of the result, will not fall in favor of the predictor because the system is "blindly" changing. If they are less imposing, than the observable, real-time components will tend to lead the result in line with initial predictions. In either case, the reliance is still on probability. To lower one's reliance on probability, they must improve their ability by having deeper insight... This is usually done by two means: one is to really dig in and ferret out those seductively innocuous, yet discrete forces that 'team up' ( if you will ...), somehow gain sight on what is not readily influencing the systems - thus, limiting reliance upon open chance. The 2nd way is via wisdom. There is nothing wrong with the a-priori as a method ( I mean ... don't bother explaining the virtue of that to a Millennial ... heh). The problem with a-priori is that one runs the risk of being stubbornly locked into presumption. The best insight or predictions are some inclusion of both wisdom/experience, together with profounder research. It really gets fuzzy, too when emergent properties kick in... where interactions emerge properties that did not exist in the array of primary assumptions. Now you have primary array, plus 2ndaries...and these 2ndaries may then interact to product tertiary emergent properties... And on and so on, they compound back in and modulate as well. Genius is the wild-card. It like 'emerges' out of the quantum foam of neuroplastisity and cannot really be explained in and of its self. We call that "flash of insight" moments. The eureka times. Einstein used flash of insight like a registry, and then discounted the flashes that were less likely...and he was left with one that was worth proving mathematically - but the flashes of insight happen first. It's fascinating as a topic, really.. Anyway, really all probability is, is a negation of what is unknown, thus making observable what influences a problem. Kind of like, " ...remove all that is impossible, whatever remains, however seemingly unlikely, must be the truth" At one end of the sophistication, you have pure guess...at the other, you have an " Occam's Razor " of weather.