Typhoon Tip

It's worth it to ask... because you know, these hint, frets and starts, if not outright modeled depictions, of quasi cutting 500 mb lows going under our latitude from earlier this week/last weekend, not one person - including self ...hey - post one word about that being against the seasonal trend. Seasonal trend has always been part of determinism in this game. Your 'ephermeral' climate bias. We have been sending trough core of the ST L ever since early December. Anyway, maybe we've been ignoring some obvious red flags? just wonderin'

I was actually comparing that 500 mb track to that guidance' ideas from four days ago, when/where it had position SE of ACK near the BM. It occurs to me to ask the question: has there been a 500 mb under LI since the early Dec event? I'm willing to wager the majority have sawed their way up there, up thru the ST L /NY.

Y’all’s prolly too incorrigibly inconsolable in a state of apoplectic angst by now buuut ... The tail end of that Nam solution shows the high in eastern Ontario back builds in the last three frames. Damming noses so whatever comes up from the arcing bclinic zone like that it’s not going to get through here not in that form. Has to go underneath. Granted ... all that’s going to change of course but that’s what the Nam shows on this run

I wonder if this breaks the record for fastest spin up to double digits page number for no reason. Haha Seriously… I’m actually with Will. It was always going to be tonight and tomorrow’s runs it really solidify this one way or the other because were bringing the stuff on board from off the open Pacific and it just it’s a week flow arena and that usually means that there are subtleties or details in there that need to be sampled properly. It’s like we have the opposite problem from over the last month when things were to screaming and fast

Would the last person that leaves this thread please turn out the lights? The custodians have even gone home -

Yeah ...s'pose it's time to divert the thread into that mash-up between nostalgia and personal tastes thing - For me, if winter is not cooperating by February 10, I'm out. I mean, I've gotten sun-burns in February ... It's like August - the antithesis. You could be up in it, thick, and be diametric in three weeks. I almost consider those months really as the transition beginnings going in either direction. The proverbial seasonal backs usually break in those months - heralds the warning shots across the bow. Just knowing that the futility gets to me and stop caring. Oh, I'll admit to hypocrisy if that historic thing happens in the spring - sure. But, the realist in me knows that's so fleeting that it automatically shuts down any anticipation for anything other than terminating winter. And I start praying and hoping that the 2nd New England winter that typically kicks off around March 21st and doesn't end until the middle of June doesn't theft 1.5 months of the early warm season. I mean, you get the sore butt winter, followed by 42 mist until June 10... then early cool snaps with a frost in Orange Ma in August ...? Follow that up with early recurving TC ... we're really talking some loathing Change hobbies.. ha! It's getting harder lately though. Man, we had 80s in February a couple years ago. And one March and two different Aprils also couched wack-job heat. All of these spanning the last 4 years, too, where we then lost out to spring to cool pointlessness. God... don't do that again.

more I look at that deliberate attack I laugh harder.. I mean.. what? 60 mph wind gusts from the S - after quite plausibly having gone through a butt soring beyond the very endurance of man -

ho man... what delicious misery. I hope that thing comes through as mostly cloudy dim sun sprinkles that way a ton-o hell on the face, ..then this happens 3 days later - that'd set up the devotees all sweet and proper, huh

I never could stand the reasoning that it's up to the speaker to make sure the idiot doesn't run with a story - It takes two to tango in that.

See ...this sort of insinuates that expectation was set? That's on the part of the reader unfortunately. The ULL behavior and so forth does mimick those events. But there's no declaration of for a redux there. Truth be told, the same sort of comparisons could be drafted up and said for any partial/quasi-closed system that moves along as such... That's all it is/was. One should be able to mention and have the reader process properly - yeah, I know. It's like you can't bare mention at all.

Ahh yeah..there's probably some deeper members in there...but D 5, we'd like to see that < 1000 .. Again, this could all be moot if this comes on board out west overnight and suddenly .. we dawn tomorrow with more substantively sampled/resulting model panoply. The Euro morphology between the 00z and 12z is telling - we need more time. Too much grousing...too much faux elation...too much everything when patience is warranted. I will say this much ... despite the 2-page morning campaign to sack the GFS lobbied by the collective, the 850 and 700 mb set ups out there at 120 hours are tasty. Isothermal snow sounding with deep >90% RH through 500 mb is plenty to get a good old fashioned pasting.

No ... factually, it's been showing a 1002 type low for many cycles. That's not really very exciting - though by definition, exciting is subjective I guess. To each his own - but let's not over sell 1002 mb low either way.

what ...is it showing yet another cycle with a 1002 mb low S of ISP ... woooh I will say this much, if this Euro run goes on to score with that, that's a big win for the early spring camp. wow... That is a f'n late March faux extended prick tease story line if ever we lived through a spring in NE - just happens to be setting up in late January. It's been a spring look all along. Some of us have been bringing this to light -

Nah .. Seems like most credible contributors in here have it pretty well baked in that this is a piece of crap with potential. Identifying trends that may lend to more vs less impact is part and parcel in deterministic forecasting, too - so that shouldn't be held against anyone imho. That said, it may also reflect more on one's own resenting of the winter thus far - ha - so they snark on others for what it is they're really doing.. But, I get it - some may... Look, no one should really be holding a pistol to the head of any model until this thing gets better sampling. The Euro is showing continuity issues ...that's a red flag.. If it was handling/seeing the initialization properly it probably wouldn't be deviating from a consistency as much as it has. Put it this way...what if drilled a hole in the ocean to the bed rock SE of the Cape - same crap.

Mm hm

The lack of BL resistance is allowing the models at this range to bore the low across land. Man, ...we really don't have much cold below the 800 mb and it's showing. That said, as we get closer to go time, the models may begin to hone into smaller land -vs- oceanic viscosity differences and it may end up a coastal hugger but E of ORH

Yeah ...anyway, I realize I've been mentioning 1992 in my own rites as of late, but my inclusion of that - for the record - was purely objective in that just at a 'superficial impression' it does bare resemblance. Not sure how far to take that though. I don't know if this event will pull anything close to that... there were tides and coastal wind problems with 1992 that were making that a multi-facet impact, and adding to its historic profile. etc..etc.. I think that was a spring tide too? Don't quote but something helped elevate the seas - yes it may have just been longevity/long shore fetch lasting for 30 hours and maybe just a bigger ISE than usual that did it too.. Anyway, this system is lacking surface and critical thickness depth, baroclinic gradients ( different subject matter than geopotential height compression) . We have amorphous frontal slopes and definitions and you really need that in the total cyclone genesis antecedence. We can make up for it by two ways - the way I see it.. The models could be too normalized as an error, and we end up with more low level thickness and thermal packing than is/was presently indicated... The other way is more top down, and suppose there is a bigger correction than normal as this relays off the Pacific, and we end up with more mechanical forcing aloft and destablizing the column that way. If this thing looks like the the 00z guidance, tomorrow though, it's a forgettable probably and the boring idea has to be considered most probable. The GFS ( am aware the 12z ..>) has been vacillating between that 'crush' look -vs- a more pallid light cold rain and paw blats on the windshield - so we'll see if this hold when that data gets on board.

Well now that was just a remarkably lucid, well-reserved .. polished, analytic consideration on your part. Considering the source ? impressive - Obi Wan has taught you well

We should have a semantics- based rule that no noun in the ilk of the word "threat" shall be used in a topic header regarding a weather event, unless the target occurrence actually threatens us.

Something like this... It's about 'fractal logistics' ... when to tamp down emergent forcing -vs- when to keep them. I had this discussion with Ekster years ago at the SNE conference, pre - NAM years... wrt to that meso model, and we were surmising that as the grid got more and more discrete, there seemed to be a correlation to that erratic noise, and continuity distraction .. where the model seemed to be doing worse. There was a time back in the mid 1990s during the ETA years, where if one was privy to the ETA's dependable biases, you could correct for those on the fly and it was actually a pretty darn good model when doing so.. It seems the grandfather of the present day child was a bit better, doesn't it - This could be happening with these large numerical model clusters, too, as their grids - in some cases ...- are getting close to competing with meso's and then yes, different convection sequencing and hydrostatic balancing ...all that factors in. I mean the Euro is not the NAM considering these latter physical make-ups. But as scales shrink ... think of it this way - above a certain threshold of finite processing ... you are advantage by the 'natural smoothing' of noise. Like letting the nature of the physical equations take care of the deviance, and then what falls out ( no pun intended ) has that normalization baked in. However, if you get 'too discrete' ..that actually exposes the physical equations to actual empirical assumptions, and then they have to conserve those assumptions out in time. You end up blowing up falsities in some case...when you're lucky, you don't - that's when the NAM scores that coup that it does ever 20th storm. Heh. I'm starting to sense or wonder if we are getting the Global numerical model technology ( in general) operating to a state where it too 'considers too much' ? The Euro is supposedly ahead of the tech curve on this with there '4-d variable' system - which is basically ( as I have read ...), not the same thing as managing chaos down at the fundamental emergence, more so what to do with the noise once it's already effecting the run - which is good and better than not doing it. And it shows at < D4.5 or so. But even the Euro is seemingly prone at times to "giga motions" and running away with false emergence from time to time.

well... I don't really care about that other crap. This, is not desperately unlike either one of those two comparisons... sorry

Also, the individual GEFs members have had occasional bombs with this thing. The operational just hasn't put up a solution quite a vigorous, but this 18z run was about 6 mb short of nicking RI ... I still echo my sentiments from earlier that there may be minor, albeit sensitive sampling/assilation concerns as this total wave space is previously almost entirely contained over the Pac oceanic basin.

Also... additionally to 1992 ... I don't think 1997 on this particular arrival isn't a terrible analog either, though getting here may be different.

I'm liking the 1992 analog more and more actually ... From my spacial relationship observations the 500 mb wobbling around down to 528 dm looks a tad deeper as a mid-lvl system, then '92, but taking into account climo that's probably proportional. They also both taking tracks not demonstratively different to be all that distracting, while being quasi cut-off. There is also some simlarities in the mass of the +PP/orientation over eastern Ontario - at least > 50% likeness. This is in totality enough similar in my mind not to toss the notion - I mean ...not that anyone is, just sayn' But jesus christ what a run of that model... That sucker had three blockbusters... talking a lot of people going quite far toward ...shall we say, adjusting their seasonal snow fall deficits. Heh. Re the first this weekend...I'm more comfortable giving NW RI to the western subburbs of Boston as the real rain cat-paw -vs- snow transition axis when factoring for GFS bl thermal handling, and perhaps the last 6 hours then collapses SE to clock interior SE zones with CCB as it pivots out. Probably too detailed? But, I'm using basing that on this one run. I'm sure correction needs vary depending on which cycle we see.

You know and ya wonder ...if/when the other climate shoe drops. Been musing with Bob and Kevina over the last hour about the spring vibe to the look, and it really seems it should be hard to maintain that for this long ...in the guidance, and actually get that to happen that way. I mean, meandering ULLs supplying pocket cold is really frankly a pretty bizarre look the last 10 days of January, ... but I guess add that to the list, huh -