Typhoon Tip

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

I don't think it diminishes the essence of the point he's making - you know this .. but there's no time requirement that strictly invalidates. Cold early is the take-away. Just sayn' That said, I don't believe 1989 can be used as an analog with the climate flux, anyway. In fact, most analog methods are in trouble when comparing derivatives from then, to now... as the Global physical 'atmospheric machinery' that is ultimately instructed/govern/a response to distribution of heat source and sink, has empirically changed and therefore it is reasonable to question different "gears" so to speak. That's why super Nino several years ago only registered weakly in global statistical packages ... list goes on. Not gonna get into it, because one can be black and white right and people will attempt to controvert merely because they don't like it - blah blah. Worse yet ... we live in a post-Industrial Revolution relative utopia of convenience that's causing a neggie cultural feed-back, where people can rely on faux implausibilities to sooth, and systemic/recreational denial, and not have to suffer the consequence of their decisions because said IR advantages is there to clean up the proverbial shit of their mistakes and stupid thinking. Enter the internet and now you have islands and schismatic belief systems that are thus re-inforced for not sensing consequence. 'Hey, we gotta be right, then.' That's why GW doesn't exist by the way..

No ... just mentioning that as an afterthought for conceptual comparisons and so forth. Since nothing in a universe that is ultimately built on quantum uncertainty principles has a probability of perfectly 0% ... there's always hope though -

What makes the GFS particularly annoying is that it's been a busted ravioli with this thing all along, and just when the other guidance show more progrssive flow and sort of nod to the GFS' previous ideas, it turns around at the surface. I dunno...I haven't read what others have written but, to me this seems like a stay the course as a 55%'er for strike and nothing's really changed, not based on the overnight. We're still just D5.5-ish ...which technically no guidance type really owns that range - at a baser operational level there's that. But just from my experience with guidance over the years ... a mid range product dump is not that uncommon, only to get it back passing into 96 hour leads. This is a difficult one for a couple of conflicting reasons. For one, the flow is speeding up again. Fyi folks... the 06z GFS at 260 hours has 150+ no wind max running NE off the MA associated with that pseudo-adiabatic faux bomb... The system is unlikely, but the hemisphere has seen these hyper jets on a few occasions this year; this one is the more extreme I've personally seen modeled - though as said, the tapestry of that period is likely to change, it's just that huge wind maxes of that ilk are not unprecedented. I can tell you, if anything like that ever did happen, that would be some kind of true freak of nature. The hydrostatic forcing almost appears physically implausible at that extreme. Interesting.. So anyway, ... the flow is speeding up and we have rest state geopotential wind velocities between 50 and 70 kts outside of S/W wind maxes. That should make phasing and timing problematic. So, unraveling solutions like the 00z panoply are not exactly unwarranted. Yet, the R-wave is unusually long, which is both required for faster balanced speed, but, can be made up for if the entire construct of the flow is actually progressive - which the period in question appears to be struggling with how much so that is the case. ... As a seasonal trend... bombs are having trouble ( save NS/NF!)... They are being consummately over-modeled between D's 5 to 10's ...only to end up with these streaky pallid lows that are middling and pedestrian ..pick the adjective. I see this as already doing that right before our eyes... or at least, trying to get there at least excuse. I mentioned several days ago that I thought a middling low bottle rocketing off the M/A in a failed phase - in no small part related to x-coordinate falling out of sync with the y due to velocity saturation) ... this overnight series seems to be heading in that way if clumbsy and so-so agreement with details. Weird winter... We got the early storm but ever since it's been either excessive middle troposphere wind velocities offering canvased destructive wave interference, or... so relaxed that we wobble weak gradient features that don't do much - this latter character basically the last couple of weeks. But, we may be flipping back into rage wind again... One thing I've also noticed is that the AO has been predominately positive this year, and that's probably adding to the wind contamination issues... We have that over the top of the already well-documented HC expansion issue, and what you end up with are boreal winter heights kissing a surplus of Global latent heat and there we are with maximizing jets... You can't win...because if the AO does crash and we get bona fide blocking/south suppression of the mean polar jet, it's going to squeeze matters that way too... But like in 2015, that happened, but so extreme that we end up on the N side of the jet in the relative slower region of deep heights and low QPF/high ratio bombs.

ICON giveth ICON taketh away

Know what's funny ? that model has the best continuity from 12z to 18z out of all of them