Typhoon Tip

'Been just sort of observing ... ( lost interest due to my perennial checking out that typically happens in March ...don't take it personally. ) It seems there is/has been a tendency to collectively lean toward higher amounts reviewing many pages in this thread. Then the subtle surprise when x-y-z run cuts back and, then a-b-c model suggests more and we forget the x-y-z... I just wanna add, I don't typically see big amounts from fast moving open waves... particularly when the wave its self has almost vague mechanical signature in the flow. I think some of this nearer term run-up attenuation of the development profile (talking Satur...), may be realism and correction pushing back against the above 'leaning'. On the other hand, just about any permutation in the Earth's atmosphere since about 50 years ago ...is going to have more moisture at its disposal ... so, comparatively weaker kinematics can ...I dunno, add a couple tenths or so... That's just fact - water output from island showers near Fiji, to enormous tempests in the GOA, to categorical hurricanes in the Atlantic... to thunderstorms in WeatherWiz's backyard... everywhere, the atmosphere is empirically holding more moisture and rate results are up. Not sure how much that facet should deterministically add to this thing, but, it's just to say that the same synoptic evolution in 1919 doesn't produce (probably) as prolifically as it does in 2019.. Worth a consideration... if only for a little more. The other aspect I'm toying around with is the "little critter" phenomenon - which is a euphemism (don't panic ) for when a seemingly innocuous perturbation in the flow goes flippin' nuts, which happens regardless of 1919 or 2019, too... I don't know this qualifies, ...I don't think it will ... but, most of those positive bust types take reanalysis to figure out why. You know, I saw Bozart's presentation back in 1997 when he first coind the expression to describe those head scratch six hour long S+er's out of nowhere... as I also recall the system he was using for his presentation. It was fascinating... 10" on a west wind along the pike and SE Mass is the ultimately left-fielder... Pretty sure it was Feb the previous year. Anyway, different story different time no analog.

If there's any usefulness ... https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

Not sure if this has been discussed so excuse any redundancy - I've accepted the notion smoldering underneath all this monitoring that the perennial ice is on a course toward extinction ... whether that reality is observed next year or decades away, notwithstanding. What I'm interested in is the "rate" of recovery over the seasonal transition. Those modalities are perhaps more telling about the drivers and forces effecting a system than the scalar statuses. Many of these more impressive cold wave winters (that may or may not have had concomitant snow storm efficiency) were led off by fantastic recovery rates with sea ice expansion, as well, with land-based cryospheric metrics, during the preceding autumns. I think it is also less systemically observable over antiquity because passed decades did not have as much exposed naked sea-surface, having ice more enduring during warm months ...such that said rates more likely merely went unnoticed. So, it's supposition...but, I suggest a rapidity in areal ice recovery ... along with land-based numbers, can be telling signs for an ensuing winter's arctic contribution to modulating middle latitudes around the Hemisphere - notice I said 'Hemisphere' and not 'local-yoke's backyard'...

Fwiw - https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/23/world/arctic-sea-ice-breakup-greenland-trnd-wxc/index.html

It's interesting as we track a mid latitude heat event (plausibility) over the eastern 1/2 to 1/3 of North America, which we similarly did back near the end of June when that took place up near Siberia - Probably a basic R-wave argument in place there -

Perhaps .. I'm not sure I agree with the tone of the mathematician cited often throughout that University of Washington source, either - case in point: " "The good news is the indicators show that this slowdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation is ending, and so we shouldn't be alarmed that this current will collapse any time soon," Oh really - that seems a little preclusive if not a presumptuous leap based upon the reasoning supplied in the article, and only 14 years worth of empirical data... It is what it is... he she could be right.

Me neither ... considering that SSW events time-lag correlate to a reduction of the +AO phase state, which is opposite of what is occurring with a strong(ening)(ened) we see now... The other aspect, ... the termination of down-welling warm plumes that are theorized to cause increased static stability in the upper troposphere over the arctic --> breakdown of storm strength and collapse of the vortex (whereby/when blocking episodes ensue)... all that: the end phases of those events are either a logarithmic decay, or a strong analog for a that behavior, as they disappear in a very gradual extinction... Compounding that fade out ... it is unclear as we then relay winter hemispheres, if they effect summer circulation across the virtual boundary of seasonality. Summers typically feature no thermal flux of any kind between approximately April/May thru late October or so... Contrasting to the starkly increased tumult of thermal cool and warm events that pop off and decay at different time expanses and magnitudes during winter. So if any preceding mechanism is in place, not sure I see how sufficient that forcing would remain when there is virtually no signature/marker left in the data that suggests anything at all still exists.. Seems unlikely... but hell... maybe the system goes by a kind of first law of Newtonian dynamics ...where it's going to keep behaving per it's last forcing until acted upon by another force sufficiently strong enough to effect a new course... So as the a-hole careens through the intersection and causes a pile-up...he/she keeps on rollin blithely away and is no where to be seen as the carnage lingers on - heh. I like that

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-atlantic-circulation-collapsingbut-shifts-gears.html#nRlv

huh.. .interesting.. well, I've decided that I received 14.5" where I am... and let the surrounding village people have their way. I'm at 74" even on the season after yesterday's event, ~ 30 of which has taken place in these first two weeks of March - impressive either way.

I agree...that 24 hours is too long to wait, particularly if it snows for 6 hours and one intends to/has to wait 18 hours for that measurement. However, I suggest that when the snow stops, and it is systemically clear that it's really the end of the event, then the measurement is taken. However, during the event, I disagree (if perhaps this is a strawman argument) that 6-hour clear should be done, because as I was just describing, storm circumstancial melting/settling/or even sublimation - though that would rarefied, should be considered part of the event.

yeah... like, "...Prior to melting or settling.." ? that's absurd. Like, what about 'sublimation' then - You can't then measure snow ultimately, accurately at all, if it is 32.5 F and S+ because yeah, your accumulating, but you are simultaneously suffering an unknown negation ... Settling? Not much better, because it can snow 30" at 20 F and settle a lot more than 15" at 20, by shear weight... Bottom line, that statement really is horrible when considering the physicality of purpose/cause in the matter. Personally? I think that stuff matters, melting and stettling and sublimating... all of it... when the snow stops, you measure... If the snow pack lost to those on-going negations that's part of the snow event, and cannot - or should not - be uncounted.

its interesting to come in here and see this discussion, because I'm debating snow totals with my group of friends in an IM that don't really do weather stuff... anyway, I'm saying that I maxed here in Ayer at my place at 14.5" and it doesn't jive with the 18 to 21" being reported around me. Either: someone ended up in a weird nadir total; someone doesn't know how to measure snow depth; someone is lying... Not sure which of those, but I just measure the stack depth ... I didn't clear anything every 6 hours. I just have a perfect snow board region that is out of the wind and it lain with 14.5" new as of midnight when I crashed, and there was no evidence of accumulation when I awoke this morning. So, I am left with a quandary as to how much really fell: my 14.5" ..or, the average of 18 to 20" ... I really don't believe the latter, however. I suppose it is possible that there was a 4 to 6" gap that shielded just my street, if not my yard...from the rest of the town...but somehow I find that less likely too - heh

It's cat in a bag mentality... They do that, cats will "hide" by jamming their heads in small paper bags, while their whole entire ass end and tail stick out ... Only in this paradigm, the user's storm-head is jammed up in their backyard, and instead of thinking about the entire panoply of the storm extent sticking out side their immediate observable distance to the tree lines... they've formulated what the storm was within that observable distance.

That's weird. ... after descending to almost 27 my temp here in Ayer has popped back to 30. The snow is less fluffy again ... are we wrapping warm air back west? huh

There will always be a smattering of people that were unfortunate enough to arrive upon the end of an event with lower snow totals, less wind, and rarely low visibility ... ready to inform us all that the storm was not a very big one ...

You're surprised by that Scott ? ... there is no test for rational minded individuals when joining this confederacy -

Nah...not capture. I'm actually thinking this makes sense that there's less... That as part of the consternation that the models were fusing total vorticity so deeply then "un" fusing ... but this way, there's not really much of that... So that could be the answer: the models were doing too much to begin with. just a thought -

that's what this thing appears to be doing ... really slamming the door that separates the storm raging in the E to the relative quiescence taken over out west. That N-S oriented band out there that demarcates the two worlds... you could almost walk out from under it's steady S, to nothing but the dim orb of the sun.

yeah... For a winter storm enthusiast that's a tough pill to swallow. I had something similar to that take place during that "Boxing Day" storm up my way in northern Middlesex County up along Rt 2 a few years ago. That storm was a big presence in a few runs at deep mid range that got lost and almost flattened down to nothing, only to come come back to prominence as a major major threat inside of 36 hours! Went from nothing to blizzard in real short order... by the time we finally getting our heads wrapped around the idea that a life-threatening big time monster cryo bomb was about to unleash the end scene of The Shining on all of SNE ... we were getting royally shafted by weird dry air entrainment/evaporation notch in surface verification that seemed to collocate by horrible luck alone, with some sort of DVM node associated with a standing g-wave. That nifty little atmospheric collaboration gave us 3 or 4" of chalk dust when many areas literally only 10 to 15 miles SE were nearing 20... I mean it happens. These storms that are major but less than top dogs come along with idiosyncratic butt bangs that seem almost personal - haha...for lack of better emotive commiseration. The big dogs? They tend to homogenize the huge impact more evenly... It's just that you can't bother trying to rationalize that reality with someone under the prolific bands because they'll honk like a donkey to defined the storm as something out of the bible. That's why we have climate and historian specialist that come in during post-mortem to rank these things - You know... that deal next week on the Euro may have legs... It could actually big deal for you and rain for us back here and that's life.

Definitely settled into primarily an eastern/SE New England special after some earlier tendencies to back out that way didn't last...

Well ... this band is for real... What's interesting is that the aggregates are actually large despite the temperature dropping. 28 F now... vis between 1/8 and 1/4 M, S+ with occasional chalk dust whirling and curling off the eaves of surrounding homes. 6" but passing above that measure given to present conditions

I must point out ... the models did exceptionally well with the banded nature of these concentric outer reaches of the storm... Really something looking at rad this hour, and just how much it hearkens back to even the ICON for that matter. They all took turns showing bands of action interspersed by nulls... 29F 1/4 M vis S+ 5.5"

These different radar depictions convey enough different "panache" as to serve a distraction for me. As Will pointed out, there is 'sucker hole' in an arced band quasi stationary back in the CT that looks filled in on some radars - ...

Pretty much... This was always a SE threat (primary) but as the past week's worth of dailies and pages of threads and media et al speculated, there was clad conjecture as to whether some of those concerns would get farther west. It actually appears that both did and did not happen ... The did part is that it snowed in arced bands down to N Jersey... the devil part of that deal is that it did not snow at "threat" proportions. Which is interesting.. The N-S oriented deform band over the Berks appears to be a bit west, as was the activity around NYC/N Jersey. But, by and large, these are not headline sensible impact regions. So yes and no. 3.5" 30F 3/4 M vis S- with some minor blowing

12z NAM has this maxing out for impact right now through 4pm or so BTW... has the western deform falling apart over the next three hours... and a new one pulsing to life back here in central zones...before it to vanishes to shreds and flurries this evening... that's sort of step down in general complexion I'd have to say... We'll see. Also, rather than a westerly low position - which may have wrong - it appears the rad presentation may actually be reflecting the 700 mb circulation.. .the surface low is actually slightly E of 70 W near 38 N.. which is where the NAM has it on the 3-hourly position off the 12z .. so not bad actually.