Typhoon Tip

It seems to be the whole ball of wax on this this thing - Just a quick critique - you mentioned earlier that the N/stream involvement didn't seem very plausible to you "because the flow is tipping progressive" - or words to that affect. I don't see how/why 'progressive' characteristic of the total flow behavior is a logical delimiter there. Progressive happens in either stream...it's just a tendency for r-wave rollouts to move actively west-toward east at mid latitudes..which can be endemic to either. That said, "phasing" per se is harder - not so much because it can't happen, but... because the models are not sophisticated enough to handle the narrowing margins for error down to finite scales, required to correctly assess whether there is syncing mechanics in the stream spacing and so forth. It's a bit advanced...but, it really has to do with the coriolis forcing in three-D. 2Ω (v sinφ - w cosφ), -2Ωu sinφ, and 2Ωu cosφ, which handles the west to east in U, north south in V and W of course being up down. Anyway, as these are combined, if any one exceeds a critical value/threshold ...the velocity of the system overwhelms the forcing and the system doesn't "feel" the exertion to rotate...or 'curve' as much. That's why fast flow tends to curve less ... ? It doesn't mean it curves none - it curves less...These factor work out to decimal forcing when you put in values for latitude and wind velocity. So, you have to do all that at the latitude, per wind and so forth, at different levels...to get to a "syncing" phase... That's why these thing are tougher to phase at higher speeds... And, it is why the models have been tending to correct phasing toward the upper/outer Maritimes ...when they were first doing so closer to home when they were in the extended. It's like it's getting better data into the f term and than the field corrects to a phasing further down stream because the curvature forcing could not take place in time to get us here. These runs are trying to over come that by digging the N-stream sort of calving west against the eastern slope of the western ridge ... as the ridge is pressing eastward in the progressive pattern no less. Oy. Lot of juggling here. This behavior might try to phase things soon...mainly because that digging further west earlier on. Increasing some space in which to phase is like giving some time back the system.

...I'm not so sure the 'sampling shadow' is as much a factor in any uncertainty...as it was 20 years ago. Hell, even 10 years ago there were times where system morphology would take place down stream over the continent, after S/W's started nosing into the physical sounding regions out west. But the assimilation technology has gotten really pretty sophisticated. We'll see. It could still be factorable .. I just have not noticed in recent years very glaring examples of correction behavior in that regard.

Well... last night I mentioned this continuity break seemed more likely a new paradigm rather than modeling the same system that we were following, anyway? The flip-side of that same concern/observation 'might' be, gee - do we trust that... Not that anyone did - just sayn' for those grousing over modeling performance - if you are doing that, you bought in. Otherwise you wouldn't do that. So, lesson learned? Probably not. I also agree that 'more information is not always better' - in this case...as Scott mentioned, the 06 and 18z Euro products are new in the era of accessibility to the modeling cinema's age of gawk and appeal, and addiction..heh. Kidding, but seriously ... We are probably missing some familiarity-heredity as to any nuances in performance with these off hour cycles of the Euro. I mean, we have this sort of impression for the 18z GFS [ enter sarcasm here ], so it's quite plausible. I haven't run out and researched the web myself...but, I wonder, are there any disclaimers out there that discuss the Euro's 'off hour' runs - maybe they admit and/or sell it as a granular version, and therefor, it may not even employ the correction shit. I'm just spit balling.. Point being, this doesn't or should not fairly be used to judge the Euro. And, hell ...for all we know, it'll come back on the 12z and make a proper showing. Oh ..it gets harder to visualize such fortune happening in an apparent unrelenting dearth of good graces ... but if it is possible, don't give in, and be objective ..etc. Anyway, all along this was more southern stream/N/stream phasing questions. Yesterday's 18z purer N/stream with almost no S/stream become for a Miller B ...probably even NJ models solution, that was an abrupt change and break in continuity requiring the same skepticism. I sense some desperation is made the collective leap here. No criticism... Hell, what if the S/stream comes back because of the relay off the Pac on this 12z initialization that's about to get underway... And what if the Euro's N/stream idea comes back, too. Now you got a substantive S/stream running out underneath an N/stream dive through Wisconsin and we're back to some of the absurd looks from last weekend. Wouldn't be the first time a long lead system product dumped only to return. Oh I don't think so ...but, I cannot preclude it either. I'm not trying to 'bargain' by saying this - I'm trying to offer some objectivity.

Also it occurred to me late this afternoon did anybody bother to check the model verification folks today and see if maybe they got some bad data in the runs this morning. Not that it matters for this I mean like I said it looks like it’s just a whole unique new paradigm

I’ll tell you what if I was an ECMWF modeling manager I would probably be really after this one for real analysis/case study

That’s such a drastic change/demonstratively different I’m inclined to argue that we’re looking at a completely different system at this point; like the models were just wrong about everything and then we transition right into a new scenario altogether. It just happened to be fitting into the same timeframe. We are correcting for two different streams simultaneously ... coincident in time Bye-bye southern stream hello new from the North but we’ll see if it has legs

You should just call these what they really are - support group thread 1 ...support group thread 2… Thread 3 thread 4 ..5 Into infinity

That’s such a drastic change/demonstratively different I’m inclined to argue that we’re looking at a completely different system at this point; like the models were just wrong about everything and then we transition right into a new scenario altogether. It just happened to be fitting into the same timeframe. We are correcting for two different streams simultaneously ... coincident in time Bye-bye southern stream hello new from the North but we’ll see if it has legs

You know that would probably make this thing even better…? If after all this it finally comes in it’s like the most powerful northeaster ever but it’s all rain for everyone ... ho man

There's a phase correlation with the AO ... I think it's + west - east ? Anyway, that's what I was getting at ... and that over the longer term, -AO(+AO) depending on which. We have had a +AO the majority of the winter, which hate to say ... fits the QBO.

I frankly don't either ... But, I don't have access to any long-lead special regression algorithms at WSI or the government/NCEP back office experimental products either. Ensembles have not been infallible this year - I mean more so than previous years... Tele's with substantive continuity weighting have been blithely shifting passing extendeds into mids ... it's not just operationals doing this. This is more seasonal tenor-reliant I guess. For about 15 years there the stratospheric/QBO correlation was more long hand and was the way to go. You could see if the phase of the QBO was east -vs- west, and also..if it was fading vs strengthening in either, together with stratospheric temperature anomaly behavior during Dec and Jan --> rolling forward tended to parlay pretty well. Even attempting this old method ...heh, no really impressive. DEC's QBO ended 1.change but it may not be in time on the fade side... As far as the strato ..we had a non-propagating warm burst early in the month, but no sign or signature since of downwelling so... subsequent AO modulation would appear unlikely and right now, we are in a week cooler node despite whatever pot-roast the GFS' cluster is trying to serve. It's just not convincing or in time... You need 20 to 30 days of lag for SSW to AO modulation so that's the February ball game even if one obtruded in tomorrow. So, I don't know where this is coming from - but that's just me. My personal hunch is that the rest of year has dicey chances for a bomb, but important not to dismiss it...because one thing that cannot be denied is volatility amid big gradients in thickness between southern Canada and the Arklotex latitudes. So long as that's your powder-keg canvas, it's just a matter how abstract the fractal artist chooses to be. That said, it's just as likely that we do the same dance.. Then, the first sign of boreal height retreat ...we'll need to watch for a big ridge balloon in the east as the cacklers of the HC idiots eat shit in 74 F again ... Then after that ... the boreal heights warm further, and the flow relaxes, the slosh back of having late latent heat terminating to higher latitudes excites a NAO blocking episode. That then causes the same seasonal lag that's been getting more frequent over the last 10 years... and maybe a late blue deal ...more likely a lot of 44 mist to complete the theft of spring.

HA hahahahaha ...

Well... if it makes anyone feel any better ... the Euro rewards the region with 60 F full sunny early bee release weather on D 7 to make up for it -

Oh, okay - the GGEM at 84 hours looks interesting and suggestive, but it appears to blow its load in the SE with that southern mid level wind max and that runs out the B-clinic instability and strands the deeper trough from being able to do much. Yeah...'nother zample of too much fast flow.

There it is! Stage anger of post mortem

Lol... Commiseration for the loss -

GGEM actually looks reasonably similar to the NAM at 78 hours... NAM has more deep south trough expression though -

Que the sad trumpet - 50 pages for the sole intent of ... wah wah wahhhhhhh. Who started the thread - that's gotta be why!

I just set the panel on 96 hours over at TT then clicked Prev on the GFS's 500 mb product some ten clicks and of that many previous cycles ... looks like 7 or 8 were clearly trending toward storm-fan doom. Awesome. Now, ...if somehow this thing comes to pass...then you can really have something to knock the model for. But maybe this system's destiny is written on the wall, and the GFS will never get any credit - in fact, the opposite in this Lord of the Flies court of public opinion. haha. All this f'n p.o.s. model needs to do is nail one bomb and the world is its oyster - what a red-headed step kid.

laugh out loud literally .. This is how you grouse people -

Not to be confusing... I actually don't know if that's the case. I've been intimating for days that this could if perhaps 'should' be middling. Problem is storm interpretation ( potentially ..) Namely, if it does gulp in huge PWAT air down south...that could 'over-achieve' as it were relative to cyclone kinematics. But it won't necessarily be "intense" as a system. Again, the NAM's solution would offer an intense result by extrapolation/combing theoretics and so forth.. But, the larger system concerns are still there when thinking out side the NAM's illusory bubble. The flow speeding up over all doesn't lend to the NAM exquisite timing... and the physical plausibility of some of these recent runs, where the cyclone has in fact trended less polished ..fits that. So mmm, I could see it still being a middling low with a big QPF plume type deal. Miller-A's have there bag of headaches. The 12z GFS too - This might be the most glaring red-herring system we've channeled hopes and dreams over yet this season. We're not considering the canvased limitations of fast flow and not expecting to have to correct these juggernaut late mid range systems nearly enough.

That is critical... really, that's the weight on the dice as far as how things roll out/parlay and come together downstream, ..or not. I mentioned earlier, the speed of the flow makes the standard model of ridge pop lending to constructive feed-back downstream and amplitude into the TV ~ longitudes, have problems. The fastness, it's ablating the ridge's Nward extend post the polar stream trough ejection across sw Canda, and that 'transitively' then lends to less wave space feedback potential - it's really how the speed interferes as a destructive - that said, if large scale forcing were to just get stronger, the ridge will grow anyway, and then we get that feedback regardless. I was just looking at the NAM's la-la range ( ...pretty much anything beyond 10 minutes out in time for other reasons...), and it really has an unavoidable bomb on the eastern seaboard set up. That systme approaching the western TV Valley is doing so over a lower latitude relaxed region, where the heights are compressible, such that it won't be absorbed by said velocity/shearing effects... That makes the set up prone to subsume phasing... even if only partial, that would kick back positively and cause that extrapolation to go nuts. The subsumer? Look over lower Manitoba at 84 hours, and you have two wind flags of 100 kts over a ridge arc, moving at theta across the isohypses up there. That's code for one mother-fer of a powerful polar stream S/W that's partially concealed only by the fact that it is in that position and is thus less identifiable. But when that wind max comes careen down the Minnesota slide, you'll see that dive into the - by then - eastern TV vestigial wave and ...well...that's the mating dance. Unfortunately...just as concealed by this lofty prose is the fact that we are still talking about the NAM - so... it's 84 hour depiction is probably used toilet paper in the first placed

Inclined to disagree ... the model explicitly lays out 12 to 17" of snow into the craws of the starving beleaguered, it's a great model. Kind of like anyone that uses the word snow in here writes at a literary acumen that Shakespeare might be jealous over -

Maybe this time as we relay off the Pacific ocean over land and into the more physically realized soundings ...we'll actually see that excuse pay off. I don't think it is as problematic as it was even as near by as 10 years ago...certainly, comparing the 10 years prior to that. In the 1990s, it was not that uncommon to see substantive systemic morphology down stream over eastern N/A upon nosing wave mechanics over the west. Now it just doesn't seem to cause that if at all, because of advances in assimilation and so forth. Satellite soundings are based on electromagnetic measurements and that seems on paper like it's hard to argue too... ha. I dunno - but the NAM's domain space's western edge cuts right through where this thing's partial mechanics were just entering over the open Pacific over night .. It's got it now.

Lol, ha...right, there's that too... Did it even look like it - uh...maybe, maybe not. I wasn't honestly paying attention but then again, I'm admittedly predisposed to eye-rolling with that stuff for the reasons I mentioned related to not being very trusting of analogs, and/or as reliant therein, because of CC. I'm not saying ignore them. I didnt' say that.. I said, in trouble. I'm not sure it is wise to think otherwise, when changing the thermal source and sink mechanisms. My suspicion is rooted in analytic thinking - not what I want by the way... a distinctive difference to the climate honk-debate. Anyway, I almost suggest if the temp curve looks similar, it's because sometimes you can flip a coin and get heads twice. Just can't seem to do that with my gf