Typhoon Tip

what? nothing difficult in the passage okay i put another statement in there - maybe that'll help

it's an overrunning vulnerability e of buff's ~ longitude from my take. it's been looking like that for days of modeling to me. the basic synopsis from 144 thru ..i dunno, day 10-ish, the entire region e of buff and down the ec is quite sensitive to blossoming qpf fields. when the angle of the 700 to 500 mb layer is modeled as paralleling the surface to 850 mb baroclinic axis (approximately from coastal GA to e of cape cod by 144+ ) the model in question does less or nothing. when the modeled flow in the mid level veers even slightly more s (i.e., going back over the boundary) you get the 00z GGEM solution types. it's like a head game in the models of creating enough geophysical instability to detonate the planet into an asteroid ring, and just leave it there in stasis with no trigger - no consequence. LOL that seems a bit difficult to succeed in doing. hyperbole aside, philosophically we get to a point of such excessive volatility, any perturbations at very small scales probably emerge something ... and those triggers are too small, beneath the resolution of the mid range/global solution machinery.

this is actually an exceptional overrunning signal... it's out there at the temporal horizon of the guidance but all three ens means have this implication of deep mass loading SE across Canada, while the S/stream turns back ne from deep latitude statically overruns the cold that the upstream flow loads into the GL and inevitably into the NE. the circumstance of those warmish heights extending from the TV off the m/a western Atlantic is not a warm signal for us in this hemisphere below -

i think i like weathermodels.com 's rendering better than pivotal or tt or golden gate. what's the fees on this site? may give them a trial - ... how are the other synoptic fields - h7, h5, h3 ... vorticity and anomalies... temperature...etc

yeah...i didn't see the 06z euro - frankly ... that hasn't helped in the past this season. LOL my issue is the canvas hasn't changed. too much gradient; too much velocity ( tmg; tmv) there may in fact be some middling events in the mid and extended range but they're likely to be in and out of the global models and not very dependable, as their mechanics are lost in it

great the cmc and the navgem, vs, competent modeling - what could go wrong

agreed

just wish the damn gradient would slack enough to allow curl physics to even happen. this columnated beam like those cosmic jets firing out of either end of a quasar thing is really f-n old man. we're not getting out of this winter without getting thru the f'er so please - seriously... it more than just seems that we can't seem to ever get cold without this elephant's ass sitting on a trampoline flow stretched too taught -

Probably not ... The purpose of that missive is just to be open minded to the possibility - "we have to consider" and all that ... Thing is, we all know it's coming - matter of when, not if. Not unless we can get the ... "quantum oscillator corrective kinetics" machine finally up and running ... haha, you know the 'qock' seriously though, i do think we are running into a problem where providing the cold air is sort of imposing on heights - to be honest, I've definitely seen an increase in compression circumstance whenever cold hydrostatic heights ( thickness) occurring when non-hydrostatic heights ( the g-dz line we see at 500 mb ) are attempting to happen at the same time. The storms of 1978 have "relaxed" for lack of better argument general tapestry, with cold vs hot more tied into the thickness thermodynamics. Trying to place that type of thermodynamic gradient in the midst of an already screaming g-dz ( compression --> higher velocity ambient geostrophic wind ) egh ... at minimum, we have to change the storm modes. But realistically, there's a negative interference intrinsic to the field when the g-dz velecoties are soaked and the s/w are then less able to amply within that flow. Anyway, this latter facet is coherently tending to be more so true in recent decade(s). Tendency, mind us - not a closed book...

Mmm... I find it personally more difficult do that anymore. Increasingly more difficult to employ the " ... I would think .." approach in any contexts where climate is the artist painting a vision of the future - why? ... duh. Yeah, "I would think" that answer precedes the question. LOL So, we can certainly argue that the climate change is not so far along that we can't regress - but, in your context above, it doesn't sound or come across like regression? It sounds like an expectation of a normalcy, ... perhaps event that "owed" fallacy. Maybe, but frankly, we have to start considering that, out here in the objective reality, cc is not just occurring but the empirical data in the ambit of the science is clearly observing it as accelerating.

This 12z GFS run is about the perfect scenario for the type of pattern. We're unlikely to manifest majors in that high speed compression, so this run is both nearly ideal in placement - given to the narrowing impact corridor - while also probably ceiling intensity under the circumstances

20th quick moving but solid moderate coastal storm impacting along the i-95 corridor - not bad for < 7 days ... like to see the ens mean with a f'n clue

12z gfs better

... that you squandered and failed the test anyway the next day ?

The coherence for an event around the 20th took a bit of step toward less overnight ... however, there's just as many odds that it will return. Personally, i've been of limited confidence in that, or anything specific at all ...really between the 17th and 26th+, for a basic reason: It's a very compressed, high speed medium. events within those also squeeze their impact regions down to narrower corridors. such that the models have to be pretty precise, at a range whence they are higher error anyway (standard performance) to begin with. I'm also personally not a fan of these 6 contoured spv's over lower Hudson Bay, in general. They tend to be really ominous looking but end up short on production - compression is a way in which super-synoptic aspects are in negative negative interference.

well ... if 'off season' and thus 'caught off guard' is going to be invoked as partial in the why-for so many deaths/casualties then cc-attribution science is gonna have a field day with this

this was also apparently so in the copernicus source: "Scientists say with a cooling La Niña instead of last year's El Niño, 2025 is likely to be not quite as hot as 2024. Several predict it will turn out to be the third-warmest. However, the first six days of January—despite frigid temperatures in the U.S. East—averaged slightly warmer and are the hottest start to a year yet, according to Copernicus data...."

a lot of winter can happen after exiting the solar min, too -

post feb 10

3.5 weeks until exit solar min

good! at least one of us can

the buzz saw trough with all that compression is a negative interference factor though …

more personally interested in possible series of moderate events between d 6 and 11 now that the day’s PNA index derivatives came in with a nascent bump in the graphical trajectory.

“climate” is umm changing. heh. seriously though … it seems hard to qualify that date as such when it seems we’re getting year after years piling up where the ballast of weight in both scalar temps and in time … more so prior to that date? I mean I’m asking more that declaring anything

I mean Christ, these aerial vantages provided by 60 Minutes fly-overs are indistinguishable from the heat flash followed by p-wave percussion jolt off an atomic bomb blast It’s shocking similar to Hiroshima