Typhoon Tip

For enthusiasts ...you want these subtle increasingly progressive appeals... not hanging around... I'd be happy to compromise on less residence... 4-6" ...yeah maybe 10 in a meso band... get 'er on outta here ...and I think we're watching the 8th more closely then presently aware. - not the time nor thread for that but it relates due to wave ordering in the synoptic bigger picture.

It's only funny because he's exactly perfectly correct with this approach and probably the sanest possible subjective approach as well... I also tried to point out about the CSI/meso banding potential earlier and that's the biggest wild card in this... It doesn't matter if your snowing 7::1 if you get lightning/ thunder squall activity you'll dump excessive rates and when doing so, the ratio jumps/improves to 4/5 /hr rates....

Or ... here's an option that every wants to happen - this thing fumbles around and misses by undetectable nuances... but sufficiently large enough to also f'up the wave spacing so the 8th misses too - - man... shut down the web site

Meh... NAM beyond 48 hours... Probably lucky to have had the sort of "continuity" that we've had up to this point with this guidance. I was just commenting over in the Dec thread that you know we've predicated much on the assumption that the models ( if we're even thinking about it...) are cogent with their sampling/initializations of that crucial N/stream S/W ... that's gotta be accurate to accurately assess what happens during/proficiency of phasing ..timing ... all of it. It's up over the western shores of JB ... I dunno ..perhaps satellite soundings are wholly sufficient but I got a feeling that could also impost some shorter term morphologies on this thing when that starts cutting over Michigan 24 hours from now. So all of that ... plus, the NAM suffers from this sort of vicissitudes at those ranges anyway - ... I guess in short my thinking on this doesn't deviate at all based upon any a single 60 hour NAM solution - I'm sure no one else's does either, just sayn'

Low probability but you know ..we may have to watch the 8th... It occurs to me, ... I'm thinking the system for the 5th/6th may actually get a 'phase boost' when the S/W wind max up N of Lake Superior over western JB region plummets S over the Lakes - I mean we've predicated our ideas ultimately on models and assuming that's cogently integrated off well-sampled data and it's not - least I don't see how it can be... It'll be an interesting test to see how if there is any morphology upon that cutting over Michigan... Anyway, the 8th is similar ... The only difference is the wave spacing between the 6th exit and the 8th is just too close...Otherwise, that's really a reduxing the 5th/6th set up. You have a southern stream vestigial 'placeholder' ejected from the W and then S/W mechanics subsumes from the N/stream...If the N/stream were stronger - and it is presently still over the Gulf of Alaska ... - then it could torque things up and overcome. It's plausible even if unlikely ... just something to watch ...

lightning is likely in this ...

Granted we've shed a tick or two off the 925 mb level temps ... perhaps owing to height falls/dynamic kick-backs... As we suggested over an hour ago, this run may bump east and be more intense. I don't know - is it more intense? I mean there's multiple metrics to make the determination - it's not just the pressure depth... but it did bump east. Anyway, I think October 2011 may have actually been colder in the 900 mb level ... I have a memory of reading some really exotically ( relative to calendar date) like - 6 C down that deep in the troposphere where the event's CCB axis was channeling... I don't know if we are done cooling of this one yet, either - I could see this wavering off another 1.5 in now-cast because those kind of dynamic/discrete feed-backs are not really modeled - not the extent they actually modulate. The runs just are not that nuanced yet ... give it another 30 years lol. Altho - ...sometimes I wonder if they figure out how to control the weather before the models necessarily predict the future - ... who cares about prediction if we can zap the atmosphere with instructions at quantum scales. Hey...bite me - it's good sci fi -

Not trying to be a dink but it seems these trends turning page into shorter range are to narrow the axial impact pretty close to Willamantic CT -- Worcester Hills east in particular from nuanced topographic lift -- on up to ASH/MHT Over the western side of that ... mmm I think it may expand a little farther W-NW ... I like the structure of the 'fanning' 500 mb left exit jet field - that's going to draw up some lift and I wouldn't be shocked if we see a poorly modeled additional arced or amorphous banding feature smeared out that way... I don't know if that's going to be enough for 'decks and trees' issues where you are. But this looks like power problems to me further east along said axis .. ..even if we do the dynamic 31.2 F ... that is going to cake some serious mass loading ...and then tossing isollobaric wind response ... ho man - I mean, power goes out ... power goes out - big deal. I just personally hate it because my f'n house is all electric for heat... then of course, light and internet/television and it's completely cut off from the world in a house steadily cooling while surrounding by a fresh foot of seasonal blue bomb snow... the novelty of that runs out really, really f'n fast man - By the way folks, this is a classic front half of December blue bomb...

man... if we can get this to bump 500 miles east in total mass ... you'd be talking a mass exodus evacuation level event -

Well... probably should take the question mark off the title - ...seems that siggy cyclogen's no longer much in question ...

You almost wonder .. phase change from solid to liquid water states requires a little extra 'oomph' so a 33 or 34 F while ongoing moderate to heavy R, in a sounding that's CCB isothermal beneath .. 800 mb or so... maybe parachute fat aggregates overcome that - ...

Once the column saturates ...it'll probably be an isothermal sounding ... then, if there are super structural mixing events like 'folding' and or entraining more thermodynamically cooler air source form the W/N... I've seen 34 F blue events starts cobwebbing off of eaves when the storm maxes... Then, when the storm pulls away ...couple click bounce back... This does get colder by 6 to 10 dm thickness in the 500mb to surface layer, and 850 thermal layout has cold around the backside synoptic layout as it is leaving so...probably this ends up drying out a little over the course of it.

The short answer is that the "3 KM" refers to the grid spacing ... The "regular" 12z run is 32 KM ... I'm pretty sure the finer meshed meso models are developed to try and pick up on smaller scaled ... yet important events that the global models are less capable of resolving due to their larger spacing. That gap is closing though... as tech increases in sampling/sensory, and computing power has pretty much already become incomprehensible ... the global numerical models ( a.k.a., ECMWF, GGEM ..), are approaching those limitations. I'm not frankly sure what the GFS' layout is these days? Anyone.. ?? I'm pretty sure the ensemble membership of the ensemble system has recently been added members - I don't know if the the finite grid of the models/cluster is smaller tho . The model's can and do implement 'convective sequencing' variations - that just means different physical equations ( slightly ...) that handle vertical displacement phenomenon ( convection )within the model... In a situation such as this, the height falls are creating an 'instability feedback' - I believe ...other Mets may have insights - and then the 3KM NAM ...which is intrinsically evolved to be a convection/thunderstorm initiation, may thus be more sensitive ... in then over the evolution of the cyclone - boom, and thus is producing... big dynamical subsequent/additional feed-backs once that convection is going ...etc... As far as the Euro coming east .. I still think the very early vestiges of consensus really began yesterday... These more finer meshed models "appear" to be assessing the jet interaction /stream phasing ...certainly differently than the GFS has been, but ...you have different species in the GGEM, Euro and NAM ...yet they end up similarly ... ACK-ish and other than typical 'giga' motions cycle-to-cycle ..the deviations haven't ( in my mind ) been too distracting. That might suggest that error is centered in the spacing aspect, more so than the perturbed physical variation of mathematics native to each one. ...

That salmon there ... I almost see that as snow with bullets embedded and occasional lightning

Not sure where these pop offs from you are coming from but it is out of line and frankly comes off as exactly what I said - 'defensive' Stop saying this shit - the support group aspect is a joke. A JOKE ... I have more than one occasion grouped myself in with the phenomenon of it - christ lighten up

That is an insanely ideal exit jet structure up over SNE nose then evac ... that's going to explode the shield NW ... I don't see how that can happen and keep this thing's QPF very tightly wound SE frankly and wouldn't be shocked if this has some smear bust extending farther W and N of the present layout -

I can understand the skepticism .. it is in part a responsible scientific approach, but it is also rather knee-jerk and biasedly overbearing at times, too - Defense mechanism ? I see the 06z solution as just as viable as any other - but that's just me. I don't care if it doesn't succeed at 16.7" of lightning/thunder delivery in 50 mph wind gusts wrapping ripped power lines around fallen timbre ...or if it turns out something much less. I try to see each individual's potential to achieve or under objectively. I don't see any rational reason to auto 86 the more impact scenarios. But I get it that this engagment/social-media is really much more of 'support group' lol

Not to toot horns but this was mentioned yesterday ...yes, and I'm suspectful of meso-B/CSI type banding with plausible thunder given a NAM solution/blended Euro..I rather like the 'EE' rule in this case, because for one ... these sub-synoptic scale tightly wound mid level forcers are handled better by finer meshed meso models - I don't find it a coincidence that the NAM/Euro and the GGEM aren't even returning the GFS calls anymore. Edit, 12z NAM is still just 'giga' motions typical for that model's synoptic scale handling - not likely to deter my thinking ( for now..) I'm also noting the 06z GFS subtly plumbed nuance-more N/stream through Cleveland ( ~ ) longitude, as it is foisting it's S stream vestigial vortex into the NE trajectory ... Which, by the way ... regardless these major player disagreements...pretty much all models indicate a 1.5 deg lat 500 mb wind max trajectory S of L.I. and that fits climatology on frontogenic emergence on the polar side ... Pretty sure someone gets thunder ...and the thing with CSI and banding fall rates - ...well, you know the drill... That height falls was/were noted yesterday and is consistent in the Euro and the blend... instantiating convective instability ( PI ) and then we have the jet mechanics with exception left exit at over top ... The more I think of this, ..looks like a chance at an over-achievement relative to some of these more robust guidance's as it is... I don't see the Euro this incorrect/wrong this close ... and in fact, it could even bump east on that track within an acceptable margin of error for still 72 hours and that would make the diff on accum. of course. I suspect we see thunder whether we are caw paws over to ending cake, or more realized parachutes that dynamically in either case moves toward a cryo finish... Folks ironically - rightfully ... - suggesting this was a highly dynamic reliant event and frankly, these overnight runs have done a lot to bring into focus this system greatest attributes and it is indeed - from where I am sitting - a dynamical text-book/juggernaut paradigm. The 12z should be along now any moment to abase these notions ... we'll see. Strikingly bad mid range performance but as we are turning the page into short turn, I'm starting to hedge in favor of the Euro as being the leader on this guy -

Model Diagnostic Discussion NWS Weather Prediction Center College Park MD 643 PM EDT Sat Aug 15 2020 Valid Aug 15/1200 UTC thru Aug 19/0000 UTC This product has been terminated as of August 15, 2020. For more information, please refer to the following Service Change Notice (SCN): https://www.weather.gov/media/notification/pdf2/scn20-58pmdhmd_term ination.pdf WPC will continue to include forecast evaluations of model guidance in other text discussions, which are described in the SCN. In particular, note that the Extended Forecast Discussion (PMDEPD) has a section specifically providing a guidance and predictability assessment. The PMDEPD is available at the following link: https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/discussions/hpcdiscussions.php?disc=p mdepd Additionally, advanced graphical tools comparing guidance, including climatological context, are available from the WPC Forecast Tools web page: https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/#page=tls Gallina good policy ... you stupid assholes telling you ... the n/stream is being inconsistently handled up over the tundra

Nice ... two meso models going opposite directions. Lol

Similarly ... these run variances in the NAM are well within that guidance’s typical error of synoptic scales at intervals beyond 36 hrs. wouldn’t sweat this run.

The N/stream contribution to this is just rounding the arc over NW Terr of Canada where the sampling comes into question. It seems the GFS ‘might’ be missing some physical presentation in the grids - that’s my suspicion. The Euro really isn’t deviating as much as we are accusing. The deviations are being accentuated by the focus subjected need for an idealized solution. We are 84 hrs from max and the track is 150 ... 100 mi ... not horrendous. Just means more rain ..put it this way ... should more phasing prevail ... which major guidance sucked worse ? When it comes to model assessment got to keep our personal biases for what we want to see happen ...out of it. Anyway I thought the Euro would hold and frankly it did - albeit deviating just enough to be disappointing for SNE

Not a bad assessment actually ... To re-iterate...the GFS has a speed bias that is hidden by the fact that the general circulation everywhere has in fact sped up over the last decade. It's sort of 'masking' the GFS' bias inside that making it less notable ...and one such way that manifest is what you are noticing - imho. Because I've noticed that myself - it's the old "right for the wrong reason" ... In other words, I don't know or believe that the GFS is really arriving to these faster shred asunder appeals 'organically' ... It does seem the problems with the Euro began as the seasonal circulations speed up kicked in ... - it's like the environmental arena is changing in favor of one and not the other. interesting - if supposition/anecdotal .. That said, I'm not sure the GFS is right in this case ... just yet. Like to see the N/stream get sampled better as it is N of Alberta/Manatoba over the lower archipelago of the NW Canadian shield as of 18z ... It cold nose over the border at 10 kts added and make a big difference...

heh... right - less familiar with that operationally ..no idea