Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,509
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

July 2021 Discussion


moneypitmike
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Next week looks like 90+ from

Tuedsay right thru day 10. It’s plain as day if you look at setup with huge WAR and SW flow. Tips been on it for days. Is that Stein dead and buried in Mitch’s backyard?

This post of yours is dated to yesterday ..granted, but just in case, pump the breaks.

Highly unusual, but despite those extraordinarily tall non-hydrostatic heights,  idiosyncratic flow structures at mid and upper levels across SE Canada, transiting toward the lower Maritime, have materialized in all guidance across the last 24 to 30 hour's worth of cycles.  It's getting consistent and hard to ignore.  

As a result, they necessarily have to bank an unusually cool air mass into Maine/eastern NE, while 1025 to 1032 mb high slowly passes, blocking/pinning defined front from roughly W NY to S NJ.  

It is unsual to see that happen right at the very top ceiling of 500 mb atmospheric height mechanics.  It' not like this is spring, where it's happing between 565 ad 580... there are no height higher than that ridge dome, yet the models still want to jam 62 F at Logan under 594 dm heights from Monday to Wednesday. 

It's just perfectly wrong timing emerging out of now where, wrt to confluence and an over-active mid latitude Canadian westerlies band.  It could result in the most dramatic surface unbalanced return for heights so high that is even possible - I mean, top of the chart heights, bottom dweller summer air at the surface. 

I recently opined to Pope about a similar phenomenon that's been increasingly observable over the last 10 years, and then this materializes in the guidance - seem apropos in timing.  But this is a recurring thing where the models manufacture low level nuances and aggregate their ability to offset the higher heights/thickness.   Boston could very well be, 594 dm heights over 574 dm thickness, with a 62 F chill in easterly drive train drilling salty oceanic air smell-able half way to Albany in that look. 

Not saying it will ... just that the 00z runs are no where near even warm N of mid Jersey in that layout.   All happening in climate edge ridge depths. It's hard to ignore this...  It seems the further the world ventures into this CC stuff, the more the model physics seem to fight it?  It really casts that allusion of sorts.  We keep seeing these mid/extended range modeling obsurdities - and face it, sometimes they happen.  You just are not going to see that kind of curved mid and upper ridge signature with that going on below 700 mb - it's like the models are trying to hold the surface in 1955 while the middle troposphere is Venus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

This post of yours is dated to yesterday ..granted, but just in case, pump the breaks.

Highly unusual, but despite those extraordinarily tall non-hydrostatic heights,  idiosyncratic flow structures at mid and upper levels across SE Canada, transiting toward the lower Maritime, have materialized in all guidance across the last 24 to 30 hour's worth of cycles.  It's getting consistent and hard to ignore.  

As a result, they necessarily have to bank an unusually cool air mass into Maine/eastern NE, while 1025 to 1032 mb high slowly passes, blocking/pinning defined front from roughly W NY to S NJ.  

It is unsual to see that happen right at the very top ceiling of 500 mb atmospheric height mechanics.  It' not like this is spring, where it's happing between 565 ad 580... there are no height higher than that ridge dome, yet the models still want to jam 62 F at Logan under 594 dm heights from Monday to Wednesday. 

It's just perfectly wrong timing emerging out of now where, wrt to confluence and an over-active mid latitude Canadian westerlies band.  It could result in the most dramatic surface unbalanced return for heights so high that is even possible - I mean, top of the chart heights, bottom dweller summer air at the surface. 

I recently opined to Pope about a similar phenomenon that's been increasingly observable over the last 10 years, and then this materializes in the guidance - seem apropos in timing.  But this is a recurring thing where the models manufacture low level nuances and aggregate their ability to offset the higher heights/thickness.   Boston could very well be, 594 dm heights over 574 dm thickness, with a 62 F chill in easterly drive train salty air smell-able half way to Albany in that look. 

Not saying it will ... just that the 00z runs are no where near even warm N of mid Jersey in that layout.   All happening in climate edge ridge depths. It's hard to ignore this...  It seems the further the world ventures into this CC stuff, the more the model physics seem to fight it?  It really casts that allusion of sorts.  We keep seeing these mid/extended range modeling obsurdities - and face it, sometimes they happen.  You just are not going to see that kind of curved mid and upper ridge signature with that going on below 700 mb - it's like the models are trying to hold the surface in 1955 while the middle troposphere is Venus.

Thanks Tip, I could not find anywhere that had me 90+ next week, could still change but does not look that hot tbh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

This post of yours is dated to yesterday ..granted, but just in case, pump the breaks.

Highly unusual, but despite those extraordinarily tall non-hydrostatic heights,  idiosyncratic flow structures at mid and upper levels across SE Canada, transiting toward the lower Maritime, have materialized in all guidance across the last 24 to 30 hour's worth of cycles.  It's getting consistent and hard to ignore.  

As a result, they necessarily have to bank an unusually cool air mass into Maine/eastern NE, while 1025 to 1032 mb high slowly passes, blocking/pinning defined front from roughly W NY to S NJ.  

It is unsual to see that happen right at the very top ceiling of 500 mb atmospheric height mechanics.  It' not like this is spring, where it's happing between 565 ad 580... there are no height higher than that ridge dome, yet the models still want to jam 62 F at Logan under 594 dm heights from Monday to Wednesday. 

It's just perfectly wrong timing emerging out of now where, wrt to confluence and an over-active mid latitude Canadian westerlies band.  It could result in the most dramatic surface unbalanced return for heights so high that is even possible - I mean, top of the chart heights, bottom dweller summer air at the surface. 

I recently opined to Pope about a similar phenomenon that's been increasingly observable over the last 10 years, and then this materializes in the guidance - seem apropos in timing.  But this is a recurring thing where the models manufacture low level nuances and aggregate their ability to offset the higher heights/thickness.   Boston could very well be, 594 dm heights over 574 dm thickness, with a 62 F chill in easterly drive train salty air smell-able half way to Albany in that look. 

Not saying it will ... just that the 00z runs are no where near even warm N of mid Jersey in that layout.   All happening in climate edge ridge depths. It's hard to ignore this...  It seems the further the world ventures into this CC stuff, the more the model physics seem to fight it?  It really casts that allusion of sorts.  We keep seeing these mid/extended range modeling obsurdities - and face it, sometimes they happen.  You just are not going to see that kind of curved mid and upper ridge signature with that going on below 700 mb - it's like the models are trying to hold the surface in 1955 while the middle troposphere is Venus.

I see 3-5 days easily of 90 at usual sites . It’s easy to envision that. Sell model output. The war has won everytime 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Bostonseminole said:

Thanks Tip, I could not find anywhere that had me 90+ next week, could still change but does not look that hot tbh

I wanted to catch back up with this aspect sooner but ... heh, admit to caving - with reluctance - into this Elsa shit as actually being interesting.  LOL

Just kidding. It is..   a little -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a few here with 7+ to start the month, maybe a little concern going forward?  
 

BTW, anyone near eastern CT who does any swift water kayaking Diana’s Pool off RT 198 in Chaplin (just east of IJD) is a fantastic place. Class 4+5 rapids with these weeks rain should be pretty damn good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, powderfreak said:

It’s going to eat us all after frying us.

I laugh trying to imagine us getting a record coldest July like that…pulling 67/38 type COC days out here. lol…seems like climo from the last glacial maximum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Modfan2 said:

Quite a few here with 7+ to start the month, maybe a little concern going forward?  
 

BTW, anyone near eastern CT who does any swift water kayaking Diana’s Pool off RT 198 in Chaplin (just east of IJD) is a fantastic place. Class 4+5 rapids with these weeks rain should be pretty damn good

Lol we did that in June 16, normal trip took 3 hrs on a float water was so fast 45 minutes from Campground to parking area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TauntonBlizzard2013 said:

Planted a red maple tree Monday. It was literally floating in the hole I planted it in this afternoon. Never seen that before 

That happened to me with a liberty apple tree in one of those big October rain/wind storms a few years ago. There was nothing left to the root ball. I ended up ditching it, but it was dormant so it may have survived as a bare root.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Those ORH numbers from the early 20th century were from the previous lower elevation site...not exactly a good station to "thread" in with the current ORH.

 

Agree just using BDL instead of Hartford area it moves to 11th warmest start to summer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ginx snewx said:

Lol we did that in June 16, normal trip took 3 hrs on a float water was so fast 45 minutes from Campground to parking area.

I did a swift water rescue training in 2012, it was a great location for it. One of the hidden gems in Eastern CT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...