Typhoon Tip

Here it was ... I guess it was mid month, altho I recall a wondering earlier because of the 'cadence' of hemispheric behavior. At the time, the modeling didn't go as far as July 1 but it's one of those extrapolation deals. Anyway, I recall now it was based purely at the time on the numerical teleconnector spreads from the various source, less so the spatial synoptic chart cinemas. In fact, I recall commenting on it since then how there was a discrepancy - it's interesting to me that the indices "won" this discovery at a very long lead. The operational runs were in fact fighting this as near as 7 days ago, however ... that's not really necessarily unreasonable given it was still 7-10 days away at that later time. But they were really just not interested. GFS was first to come around.

Actually .. not disputing this at all but I did notice the EPS sending signals for back when it was over 300 hours. I posted about it around June 11th or so... I'll try to find it

DPs over IL/IN/MI 75 to 80 55-60 locally. That air mass out there is heading this way. I don't know how exactly how it's mass entangles with the Lakes and then tumbles over terrain for us... but I could see there being some convection on the leading rim of that as it nears.

In fact, El Nino summers tend to be cooler ... ? in 2023, some form of Nino was forecast to onset that summer, the whole planet jumped a half click C ( as poorly recognized geological event) before said El Nino arrived. Yet to this day, I still hear the blame. Wrong epistemic/chronological direction. I think though that people toss around conjecture as though it were more substantive than it is. Some are doing it because that's just how people are in groups. Others because they're divisive. Welcome to the human species. LOL

Mm folks in here are getting annoyed by rhetoric. I say tough cookies. One cannot be a verbal fascist. People are going to be artful with their speech when they are attempting ( if not necessarily, just because they are human beings ) to emphasize the significance of whatever it is they're trying to convey. I also get the hunch that some of these same individuals would incline toward less hurt feelings on Jan 20 whenever the models are sending 30" snow total clown maps rollin' up the eastern seaboard. Noted for future analysis. Beside, by geometric comparison, damnable descriptions like heat dome is what that is. It's a ridge that is made larger by non-Markovian feedback of thermal aggregation. SO it is in fact an exceptionally good and on-point metaphor. That said, though I do not read this person's mind, if by "super-charged" he means synergistic resonance?, he's spot on. Unfortunately for the word Karens, it fits the grammatically definition of what supercharged fucking means. It means taking a result, and adding to it. Which is what a synergistic heat waves inherently do.

Wow day 1: Wednesday ... NAM's new grid numbers from 12z for BOS, 18z 54000574750 -0493 10 26 09 80 32 24 18 60000655534 -0493 112612 80302518 32 C is 980 mb at Logan's sigma, which given a sfc pressure is closer to 1015 or so, the actual sfc 2-m is probably closer to 37 C ( (72 - 7.2) + 32 = 96.x not bad considering this conceptually/validly results higher than the machine MET for couple of cycles now. Haven't seen the 12z MET but we'll see. In the past the MOS has been too cool when that's observed. 850 mb T ~ 21 or 22C here ( 24+18) = 41/2 assuming equal mixing but I suspect the slope isn't linear. The above 24 C bulging skyward... probably expanding through the mid point so it's likely closer to 22 or so at 850. This appears to match the objective guidance illustration ... If so, +22C adiabat supports ~ 36 C 1000 mb T, so as another means to infer the surface ...that doesn't include the 2 C slope to the right during high proficiency heat - which this NAM run's definitely going to be on that day, given those RH field are all 50% or less. Anyway, the NAM's 32 at 980 mb could actually be a tick cool (wrong) in this quasi synergistic potential/holistic synopsis. Bottom line is top heavy with temp on this new run. The 26 conceptually means '260 degrees' ..which pertains to the wind direction - in this case at 2pm. It's blowing straight out of Boston's urban anus right at Logan, and right around fart velocity of that 9 kts. So if actually getting that particular completely idiot to civility location to be a temperature that represents what it's like walking down Cambridge Ave to the Fens, that's about as good an opportunity as you'll find.

oh, I see. well, that's not like diurnal convection tho. that's what I was getting at. I guess an organized linear complex riding down is bit of a different beta synoptic drive so maybe that.

Ha. there are none. That's the point. Height are rising. what else are you looking at? SPC?

Nah, Wed is a big time +d(hgt) day. That's gonna drop a ton of bricks on any vertical attempt. That day's likely to be that kind of blue sky that sounds like arcing electricity.

Not impossible... Friday's more susceptible. Objective guidance has a slow leak in the ridge bubble, hissing as the flow pancakes going into Saturday; altho staying above normal overall. That goes from ridge suppression curvature, to more of a zonal W-E flow structure. No real cold fronts there... so heat languishes into the weekend, ** unless** the SW to WSW flow of 70+ DP plumes running up underneath, makes for statically more unstable environment from the IA all the way across and most importantly ... if it gets triggered. If the heat doesn't break from something like that, it may be a slow rot exit. Some machine guidance by the way still taps 90 on Sunday even though the ridge is remnant by then.

Watch 'em get 30 foot corn stalks along that line

Some guidance suggest the first day of 90+ is actually tomorrow W-N of any s-breeze contamination. I feel some of the guidance is low balling by a couple of ticks overall. The Euro's inventing cu fields with transparent anvils ...enough to rob the top 3 or 4. With 590+ dm heights under a capping ridge (i.e. DVM offset) it seems that could wind up too liberal with cloud production. Little nuances like that. We'll see, but it wouldn't surprise me if 24 and 36 hours before each day in this Wed-Sat period, we see the polish on this return.

Classic EWR arm pit KEWR GFSX MOS GUIDANCE 6/29/2026 0000 UTC FHR 24| 36 48| 60 72| 84 96|108 120|132 144|156 168|180 192 MON 29| TUE 30| WED 01| THU 02| FRI 03| SAT 04| SUN 05| MON 06 CLIMO X/N 88| 69 91| 72 101| 79 101| 79 102| 74 98| 74 94| 72 90 65 85

I understand the conservative tendency ... I'm inclined to lean that way myself just because - However, it's quite soundly objective to consider that we live in a world with so-dubbed "Synergistic Heat Waves", codified phenomenological event type by ongoing attribution sciences. One such characteristic of which ... the scalar ranges of the max of this type of resonant feed-back anomaly is that they exceed expectations ( typically ...) of either machine or man forecaster. We risk missing this in our region ...due to our "unbelievability" that's part of our heat bias here. We've had some discussion recently over whether that can happen here. I think that's kind of risking a fallacy though. Because it's not a yes or no. Synergy is a quotient. So a partial synergistic kick-back could be in play here - we just are far less likely to incur a Pacific NW, or France sort of large over-performing return values. But "our version" of a synergy, considering that is taking place over top a background that increasingly favors them everywhere, may be 104.

you know .. this reminds me. I really wanna create an index: Integrated Heatwave Energy. It would not have to apply strictly to whether 90 F, then 3-consecutive days. Different discussion. It just borrows the name 'heatwave', but it's intent is to track warm anomaly in general. This could be calculated for any degree(s) over any time(s). And it doesn't have to be just heat. The calculation can end up with negative (cold anomalies). It's not just for show and tell. The index could also be calculated for heat waves in the past and be useful to climate during this era of D(c). Past data is readily available if not reconstruct -able. I'm thinking using hydrostatic heights over time, then combined with the kinetic surface readings. This, because the hydrostats have the water already integrated into the column, so the enthalpy can be derived out of that mass, then added to the kinetic enthalpy of the time based integral in question ( so if it's 99 for 2 hours ...that actually is less thermodynamic total energy than 92 for 10 hours..etc). You could calculate for any time range. Something like that. The energy that's contained can then be used to scale and rank these events. I bet there's been some dewy heat in the past that would rank sneaky high, probably higher even than some kinetic bombs of lore. I've seen it be 95 in May over DPs of 53 several times. It felt pretty damn hot. But 89.5/76 dwarfs that for #of a Hiroshima bombs available to the system. Could calculate that total enthalpy of your time range ( basically a integral of latency + kinetic, over time), then divide it by the Hiroshima yield, and then say ... this was a 100,000,000 Hiroshima event. Although that title might not be totally WOKE ha

Looks like the 00z ( GFS anyway ... ) gave back the petty shaves it was stealing off this signal over those runs. There's still gonna be risks of MCS decay plumes ... or if any wayward linear noctural anything sliding under PF's nuts. Those are built in risks tho. Can't really forecast those until the evidence is obvious

you're gonna need a bigger Thailand sub-forum

Problem with big heat ..particularly nearing the top of physical plausibility ( which this has potential to produce ...) is that we have to think of it as maxing. That means by default it becomes easier to correct downward based upon least excuse imagined than it does to try and push the top thru geophysical limitations. It's true... one wrongly timed cirrostratus this, or the 850 mb hottest pulse ends up at 06z instead of 15z ... these thus become critical as limiting factors. Synergistic heat wave, notwithstanding. Having said that, this could cap out at 95 and bust the mid range hundos, and we'd still verify a heat headline scenario. So it's really a matter of bragging rights whether we make 101 vs "only" ping high 97s out of this. I don't think those 105's were really very realistic - ...or in the least, sufficed it is to say, given what we know of model tech error and biases at D 5-8 range, we'd need to have ti be the next day ( as in 24 to 36 hour lead) before a regional record stroke of that amount is confident.

Heat watches up for 5th period ... ? huh

Looks like the NWS is now getting gated... jeez

word - I'm mostly preaching to the others

yeah, there's a trend here to scale back the heat collapse. We'll have to see on that but ...the 00z Euro was extending matters and now this 12z GFS is definitely backed off the calving S out of eastern Canada look it was previously selling over next weekend.

To be fair, the 'white' region is 'equal chances' which pertains to either above or below normal. I think what trips people up is both the structure of the curves of those, plus the colorization. both inspire warm(cool) depending where the orientations layout. But, that product isn't scalar cold or hot. It's purely a probability. And the below area? that's not overwhelmingly high odds for below, either. So scoring this based purely on probability, that's not really a fail. It's certainly not good. But it's not an F

I wonder what it would take to make a load balanced system capable of bringing on the international constituency

This is looking increasingly more synergistic in nature as the time nears. It’s kind of funny too because just last week or maybe the week before… we were sort of questioning whether this could ever happen here hm Nothing’s happened yet so we’ll see what this looks like over the next couple days of new modeling solutions but… this has inched into a remarkable situation for the time being the strongest signal for >100 degree temps lies in interior river valleys and larger urban areas. Equally concerning is the signal for limited cooling at night mid week. The NBM shows a widespread 60-80% chance for low temperatures above 70 degrees Wednesday to Friday, with a 50-70% chance for lows greater than 75 degrees for much of Southern New England! Seeing signals for extreme heat impacts appear in Heat Risk guidance with widespread Major (3/4) impacts expanding over much of the CWA on Wednesday. By Thursday, several urban areas including Boston and portions of the CT River Valley may see Extreme (4/4) heat impacts. Levels like these are typically reserved for rare and/or long duration heat with little overnight relief.