Typhoon Tip

Yeah me too - I did a 6.2 .. though only ran 5.75 of it.. But I only had modest right hamstring discomfort this time so I think that's finally improving. Man, those things linger for ever and ..oh wait -

Looking at the 00z EPS/GEFS means in their respective handling ... I would be inclined to ask, 'how about now'? I will hold off pending both this 12z suite, but also because that sounds douchy - lol ( Also- I am presently on page 69 of this thread and can see it's ballooned by another 12 clicks ...so I am behind, so taken with a grain - ) I would not toss the 06z ICON solution's trend for robuster 500 mb depth ... The hints that are carried through those frames suggestive that the model "wants" to truly stall and protract a CCB in the area, is highly supported by the general tapestry of the EPS/GFS means... I feel the 00z Euro was the right idea in bumping back NW but I am a little non-plussed that it's 500mb hgt depth went the other way by 4 or 6 dm after the close/quasi closure - the EPS mean being deeper is still the better fit for the larger orbital telecon/super-synoptic and observed synoptic surrounding hemisphere, and this thing has been shirked for realization of that offers the region between 90W-60W and ~ 35N and 55 N boxed region along. I have maintained that ...altho admittedly, pounding the moderate snow + duration)/2 = bootleg major sort of Broadway production, but I'm seeing attempts by the above ens means to get this more fully realized. The 00z/06z ICON blend actually looks like a better surface featured physical representation of what this thing should do... It seems every model is carrying something that seems more reasonable withing a bag of their own idiosyncratic distractions. Take the NAM ...I agree with the 06z solution that keeps the QPF arc in tact around the NW arc, but it seems to be too progressive with the lower troposphere in general ..given the 500 mb is also trending toward a NY Bite anchor point. about that - notice the 500 mb 522 dm height core in the ICON!! Over NY, ...implodes than pivots SE under LI toward 96 hours... That type of motion usually means there is a F- wara effect going on with a lower tropospheric vortex that is pivoting W temporarily... Yet we're not quite seeing that depicted ...that's uneasy and I thnk this overall situation could modulate toward a major event anyway from NYC-PWM ... Hammer's cocked and the psycho is gently squeezing the trigger - it's that close The title of this thread can be changed from watching closely to Immanent, with 'major characteristics looking more possible' or something to those affects.

Nah ... suspect models are in the initial stage of formulating a higher impact consensus ... likely to see a notch higher at similar thermal fields coming from other guidance moving forward. Whack interpretations… The GFS is a vast improvement over prior runs and is falling into said line with trend - some people need to take a break. Lol In fact it’s even possible that a deeper surface pressure south of Long Island, quicker, might trigger more of a northerly component to the wind and cold at that ... and that locks a coastal front into Southeastern mass and it will not move

This ICON run may not happen but it sure is captivating ... that’s maybe the best run I’ve seen .. close tie with perhaps the Euro run from 12z yesterday was that ? anyway ... discounting those unlikely / over processed gapping west of ORH that’s a high end warning / border blizzard. Slow movement of obscene frontogen proficiency across the region likely is 4/6 hours of S+ with routine wind gust 35 ... splitting hairs in 24-26 F shattering 15::1 i realize it’s a depiction from a less popular model but that piece is relating in now and this happens - have a feeling the Euro May up the ante

So the ICON arrived with stronger jet mechanics feeding in and we see a definitively more consolidated sfc low/further west with a higher impact lashing of snow and windy/storm complexion on this 00z run.

One other thing about the Euro - ... I suspect that snows pretty hard from mid way through D4 into early D5 ..as an anomalously west proficiency. The surface low in fact may even be escaping too quickly in that single day drift eastward on that 12z run - certainly within the realm of modeling noise for it to hold back west 50 naut miles considering the 18 hour anchor point of the 500 mb height core... Which, is why I think it snows possibly hard in there - and may beat out present QPF products if using this model verbatim. Heights closed over central and eastern SNE drop an additional 10 to 12 dm in that 18 hours ending D4 into mid D5 and that will probably have some elevated frontogenic banding/meso enhancing amid a general level 2 very slow pulsing rad rot within that column ...

The band in the NAM is collocated with best frotogenic banding in the 700 mb... and that model - I have noticed - tends to try and shut things down on the W-N side of that/those elevated instability axis in most systems.. That, and, for some reason the NAM is oblong -ing the 700 mb trough circumvallate - making it sort of ovoid and that is limiting any lift for that reason, over the NW arc to. Winds are almost precisely paralleling the isohypses = maxed and stacked... This run thus tries to claim west of ORH is deep in the nor'easter vortex circulation with sunshine weeeee typical NAM overly detailed over sophisticated hyper processing run wild.

Do you remember late this last autumn, we were discussion how the GFS was consummately ( and I mean 'consummately' - as in ..almost every run and day and week of the calendar) putting out solutions where the heights over midriff Canada are between 2 and 4 dm lower than the Euro cluster in near terms, and that typically increased to almost 12 dm by D8 - This was - I suspect and still do ... - related to why the GFS appears to have a velocity surplus in the various jets of the kiss latitudes between the lower Ferrel cell and farther S - i.e, jest streams. This surplus is quite subtle at other times quite gross. Anyway, in reading your bold there smacks of this phenomenon - I've been leaning away from the GFS all along on this, as the whole super-synoptic aspect of the hemisphere are not as suitable to it's native biases as ...say, 4 weeks ago when one could exceed the speed of light in a hot-air balloon - I mean I'm not tryin' to bun myself or nothin' or vie for a member # 30 here of the EPS ens mean, just sayn'

I mean just look at that crippling CCB comma head bomb between CC and NS on #37 ...man, someone out there had better tap the Nat Guard for early preparatory strategy meeting -

I would expect the consensus to begin the formulation/coalescence process now come to think about it...96 hours the front loading is over with and the CCB will be doing it's swan song. I still, however, believe there is a small amount of S/W kinematics over the eastern Pacific that may add ( take away...) some momentum into the total of this thing. That piece looks susceptible to data shadowing by virtue of being nested so close in space and time, wrt to the California outside slider, and stuff out along 140 W in the Pac.

That looks like a foot-ball office pool chart ... We should do that, put down on chart numbers and then when all's said done and totals are in and we see the storm's verified layout - we'll have a more definitive and coherent spectrum for humility and teasing targeting packages that is/are based upon who ranked worst to best -

Looking at the latest data ... looks pretty clearly like 03, 07, and 18 blend will suffice this iteration of 2020/2021's winter

It depends circumstantially... If there's a lowered snow growth dependency in given system'ss output, and there is an E flow.... the orographic upglide forcing will bulge the stream lines into the growth region in bulk...and thus snows the shit out of the column as the air is forced up slope/particularly near the tops ...but, that air, now removed of substantive water - that induces the shadowing on the far side of the ridge line ..etc.. If there's a higher growth dependency in a system's ongoing shenanigans...that same wind will roll up and over the ridge and descend, and the bulge in the stream line may be lower than the growth region. Which means the growth region is not receiving forced ascent ... But also, any air flow that comes back down slope compresses by density/gravity ...and that squeezes the V in PV=NRT ... and that raises the pressure in PV=NRT ... which means the temp rises to balance the physics... and when temp rises, that evaporates water... SO that does rob, just not as much. I would be willing to bet, that in storms where there was more obvious striated screw slots realized for western zones immediately west of those elevation bands ... reanalysis would show their snow growth regions were lower in the sounding than say that which gook place on Dec 17 over Rutland VT heh

Anyway ..that still looks suspiciously gathering the QPF along the shore/coast of Maine all the way down ... I think there may be some QPF robbing by the cold interface producing - possible. wouldn't know how to correct for it per se .. but that looks dubious

Oh, I miss the dates... right - see, told ya it was dumb

can I ask an embarrassingly stupid question... wtf am I looking at there. The chart on the left says 162 hours and has more snow than the one in the future, on the right.. oh, are these to be added ? Otherwise that looks like a bad EPS idea for me... I don't like storms that snow 9" then ... brag about -2 from that 9" to sell 7 yay

Yeah... I agree with y'all ... The orographic shadowing cannot really be avoided - that is physically imposing geological constraint. But, to be concise - which I thought I was but I dunno ... If there is enhancing lift of relatively warmer (saturable) marine air over a cold BL, that may 'rob' in over proficiency .. What that might do then is then exaggerate the orographic effect ... You end up with 0.3" over Tolland, CT say ... Obviously we all hope and pray for that to happen...then, have some weird snow phantasm form like anime, sneak in his bedroom window with it's ice dong and be unkind while all that is happening ... But, in the off-chance that doesn't occur... Sometimes when modeling processes in the environment .. when systemic events effect one another those 2ndary results can blow up in significance. It's the "hardest" thing to model- seriously

also...I was trying to be somewhat droll humored in the previous but ...yeah...I don't care about a teleconnector -derived superlative for a D8 juggernaut that sounds like, " ...man, that'd be one of those 1 to 2 footers..." If it really mattered to me, I don't honestly like it but I've got far bigger problems in life lol

I have been wondering about this and I "think" I have a plausible explanation why we are seeing these aggregated clusterings of QPF showing up in some of the recent guidances, packed within 50 miles of coasts N of NJ - I'm noticing as we are nearing the neared side of the mid range and about to relay off to the outer range of the short range ( ...phew, hate those kind of sentences ), the models are getting interestingly quite cold in the BL at all the major hubs, PHL-NYC-BOS-PWM.. I think we may be getting a bit of long-fetch immediate coastal lift over CF effects there - I am not sure even the depictions of the higher resolution Euro species would really be illustrating that in the l-level discreteness ... but it might be there embedded in the on-going din of everything that's going on in the model physics. I just think with that deep longitudnal flow coming in normal to what is getting colder and colder in the guidance, there's likely to be some interesting QPF issues on the flop ( west) sides of those interfaces.. And I also wonder if said processing in the models may even be doing too much - as in over compensating for that interface. This could be causing some QPF shadowing to get exaggerated out in western zones where there's orographic effects then compounding.

I'm not a huge fan of the "1-2" numerology for snow ranging .. heh Its sneaky evasive and self-preservation that is SO J.B. setting up a weasel out. 12" between those end points ( roughly the length of the CD ironically )... ? Folks, can we show some sacktitude and say 18-24" ...or, 12-18" ... ? new rule - no ranges less than 6" end points

bump - nyuk nyuk nyuk

yeah...it's maybe an obscure, less important observation but I think it's interesting just how thermodynamically cold this air mass is at onset and during, yet the heights at 500 mb are so elevated relative to that.

hmm... I like symbolism - one of my hypocrisies as a self-proclaimed realist so bite me .. But, systems that begin imposing problems in California have a way of imposing problems eastward across their continental reigns of terror. Ever heard of the turn of phrase, "...This system has a history of producing...." ? ...sometimes even when all's said and done in aftermath, back-office conversations at NCEP even say, "...it's funny - that system had a long history of creating problems, too " Well, this is causing flooding and damage out that way so... Perhaps it means nothing for how hard it snows at TTN - HFD - BED Mass ... or does it - muah hahahahahaha

There's a metrical comparison on this that no one's mentioned - it's not a knock..it's a bit esoteric to common dig-in But take the NAM at 78-84 hours. It's a got broadly close 500mb isohypses region at 546 decameters...which probably means the absolute nadir is within a click or two of 540 yet > ... etc. But the thermal plumb from 750 mb down to the surface at PHL-NYC-BOS appears colder at those time frames than is typically found at those heights. The 2-meter at Boston is 29 F but that appears to be sea component modulated... inland to PHL ...it's like 24 F ... It should be 534 dm and I wonder what the sounding curves will look like ... Snowgoose69'er mentioned this season's had it's fair share of oddities - that's been the profound statement of the thread, frankly ...because it's true for one. But that whole thermal layout on this one in both the W and U - Y relationships appears to be off compared to the classical model. So add this this one to the list

love the way you worded that - lol ahahaha NOT better ... just you know, less shitty