tunafish Posted 3 hours ago Share Posted 3 hours ago 3 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said: I think we need to consider the 6-7-8 a pattern arrival event That's going to be an H.A. implication ( I suspect ...) as nearing the 5th, all ens systems agree in the rather abrupt guard change in the N. Pacific. The entire circulation medium out there essentially product reverses, like on a temporal dime when considering planetary wave distribution. Really fast... intra-weekly time scale. If that happens - first of all - that's likely to cause increased model performance problems. Furthermore, the implications of sending a such a violent signal down stream, the western N/A ridge will be in a period whence the 'correction vector' will be pointed toward more amplitude - hint, I think more than is currently in the cinemas. It's a wave # number/distribution argument. When you supplant the regions N of HA with as much total height anomaly reversal (lowering in this case) like these charts below are showing ( using the GEPs but they are all doing it ), there will physically necessitate height growth into western North America... More than 50% ...closer to 80% of this mass field alteration takes place in < 5 days. I would be reeeally leery about any depictions down stream over eastern N/A. And by that, more amplitude is actually favored. When I say correction vector that's just an expression I use to mean corrections that are inevitable in the guidance will likely lean in a given direction... That all times around the 7th for some sort of emergence E of the nations midriff longitudes. I've been contemplating making an AI bot account to automatically post the tldr; versions of your posts. I wanted to test if it would have the desired result and the initial attempt resulted in a text body even longer than yours. AI still has a ways to go it seems. The short version (TL;DR) He’s saying: A major, fast, and violent pattern change in the North Pacific around Jan 6–8 is likely. That change will probably force a stronger-than-expected ridge in western North America, which in turn means models are likely underestimating how amplified (extreme) the downstream pattern will be over the eastern U.S. around Jan 7. Bottom line: don’t trust the details yet — bigger swings are favored. Now let’s unpack the jargon. Line-by-line translation “I think we need to consider the 6-7-8 a pattern arrival event” ➡️Around January 6–8, a new large-scale weather pattern is expected to fully arrive. Think of this as: the atmosphere reorganizes itself rather than just day-to-day weather noise. “That's going to be an H.A. implication (I suspect…)” ➡️ “H.A.” = Height Anomaly (upper-air pressure departures from normal). He’s saying this pattern change will strongly affect upper-level pressure patterns, not just surface weather. “all ens systems agree in the rather abrupt guard change in the N. Pacific” ➡️All ensemble models agree that there’s a sudden flip in the North Pacific pattern. “Guard change” = the atmosphere switches roles quickly (like defense → offense). This agreement is important — it means the signal is probably real. “The entire circulation medium out there essentially product reverses” ➡️ The whole North Pacific flow flips (ridges become troughs, troughs become ridges). “like on a temporal dime… Really fast… intra-weekly time scale.” ➡️ This happens very fast, within a few days, not weeks. Meteorologists don’t like this — fast changes break models. Why this matters for forecasts “that's likely to cause increased model performance problems” ➡️ Models struggle when the atmosphere changes this quickly. So details beyond a few days become unreliable. “sending such a violent signal downstream” ➡️ A big Pacific change ripples eastward across North America. Weather patterns behave like waves — a hard shove upstream creates chaos downstream. “the western N/A ridge will be in a period… correction vector… toward more amplitude” ➡️ As models adjust, they will likely correct toward a stronger western North America ridge. “More amplitude” = higher ridges deeper troughs bigger temperature swings more extreme outcomes “more than is currently in the cinemas” ➡️ Current model maps are too tame. Reality is likely bigger and sharper. “wave # number/distribution argument” ➡️ This is deep meteorology, but in plain English: The way large planetary waves are rearranging forces compensation elsewhere. If heights crash in one region, they must build in another. “supplant the regions N of HA with… height anomaly reversal” ➡️ When upper-level pressure drops hard in the North Pacific, physics demands that pressure builds somewhere else — in this case: ➡️ Western North America “there will physically necessitate height growth into western North America” ➡️ A strong western ridge is basically unavoidable. This is the key sentence. Why New England should care “More than 50%… closer to 80%… takes place in < 5 days” ➡️ This is an extremely rapid atmospheric reorganization. Which means: Models haven’t “caught up” yet Downstream details are suspect “I would be reeeally leery about any depictions down stream over eastern N/A” ➡️Do not trust model specifics for the eastern U.S. yet. Snow vs rain, cold vs warm — all still very fluid. “more amplitude is actually favored” ➡️ When things settle, expect bigger extremes, not moderation. For New England, that usually means one of these, depending on timing: Sharper cold shots Stronger storms Higher snow potential or sharper cutters Bigger pattern swings overall “That all times around the 7th for some sort of emergence E of the nations midriff longitudes.” ➡️ Around January 7, the effects of this pattern change should start clearly showing up east of the Mississippi. That’s when things “pop.” The Big Picture (in normal human language) He’s essentially warning other mets: “Hey — the Pacific is about to flip hard and fast. That almost guarantees a stronger western ridge than models currently show. Because this happens so quickly, models will struggle and probably underplay how extreme things get downstream. Expect bigger swings over the eastern U.S. around Jan 7 — and don’t lock into specifics yet.” If you want, next we can: Apply this specifically to New England snow/cold odds Decode what this implies for storm track vs cold supply Or compare this to past winters with similar Pacific flips 2 3 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tunafish Posted 3 hours ago Share Posted 3 hours ago Just now, tunafish said: I've been contemplating making an AI bot account to automatically post the tldr; versions of your posts. I wanted to test out of it would have the desired result and the initial attempt resulted in a text body even longer than yours. AI still has a ways to go it seems. The short version (TL;DR) He’s saying: A major, fast, and violent pattern change in the North Pacific around Jan 6–8 is likely. That change will probably force a stronger-than-expected ridge in western North America, which in turn means models are likely underestimating how amplified (extreme) the downstream pattern will be over the eastern U.S. around Jan 7. Bottom line: don’t trust the details yet — bigger swings are favored. Now let’s unpack the jargon. Line-by-line translation “I think we need to consider the 6-7-8 a pattern arrival event” ➡️Around January 6–8, a new large-scale weather pattern is expected to fully arrive. Think of this as: the atmosphere reorganizes itself rather than just day-to-day weather noise. “That's going to be an H.A. implication (I suspect…)” ➡️ “H.A.” = Height Anomaly (upper-air pressure departures from normal). He’s saying this pattern change will strongly affect upper-level pressure patterns, not just surface weather. “all ens systems agree in the rather abrupt guard change in the N. Pacific” ➡️All ensemble models agree that there’s a sudden flip in the North Pacific pattern. “Guard change” = the atmosphere switches roles quickly (like defense → offense). This agreement is important — it means the signal is probably real. “The entire circulation medium out there essentially product reverses” ➡️ The whole North Pacific flow flips (ridges become troughs, troughs become ridges). “like on a temporal dime… Really fast… intra-weekly time scale.” ➡️ This happens very fast, within a few days, not weeks. Meteorologists don’t like this — fast changes break models. Why this matters for forecasts “that's likely to cause increased model performance problems” ➡️ Models struggle when the atmosphere changes this quickly. So details beyond a few days become unreliable. “sending such a violent signal downstream” ➡️ A big Pacific change ripples eastward across North America. Weather patterns behave like waves — a hard shove upstream creates chaos downstream. “the western N/A ridge will be in a period… correction vector… toward more amplitude” ➡️ As models adjust, they will likely correct toward a stronger western North America ridge. “More amplitude” = higher ridges deeper troughs bigger temperature swings more extreme outcomes “more than is currently in the cinemas” ➡️ Current model maps are too tame. Reality is likely bigger and sharper. “wave # number/distribution argument” ➡️ This is deep meteorology, but in plain English: The way large planetary waves are rearranging forces compensation elsewhere. If heights crash in one region, they must build in another. “supplant the regions N of HA with… height anomaly reversal” ➡️ When upper-level pressure drops hard in the North Pacific, physics demands that pressure builds somewhere else — in this case: ➡️ Western North America “there will physically necessitate height growth into western North America” ➡️ A strong western ridge is basically unavoidable. This is the key sentence. Why New England should care “More than 50%… closer to 80%… takes place in < 5 days” ➡️ This is an extremely rapid atmospheric reorganization. Which means: Models haven’t “caught up” yet Downstream details are suspect “I would be reeeally leery about any depictions down stream over eastern N/A” ➡️Do not trust model specifics for the eastern U.S. yet. Snow vs rain, cold vs warm — all still very fluid. “more amplitude is actually favored” ➡️ When things settle, expect bigger extremes, not moderation. For New England, that usually means one of these, depending on timing: Sharper cold shots Stronger storms Higher snow potential or sharper cutters Bigger pattern swings overall “That all times around the 7th for some sort of emergence E of the nations midriff longitudes.” ➡️ Around January 7, the effects of this pattern change should start clearly showing up east of the Mississippi. That’s when things “pop.” The Big Picture (in normal human language) He’s essentially warning other mets: “Hey — the Pacific is about to flip hard and fast. That almost guarantees a stronger western ridge than models currently show. Because this happens so quickly, models will struggle and probably underplay how extreme things get downstream. Expect bigger swings over the eastern U.S. around Jan 7 — and don’t lock into specifics yet.” If you want, next we can: Apply this specifically to New England snow/cold odds Decode what this implies for storm track vs cold supply Or compare this to past winters with similar Pacific flips Before you respond in earnest, I'm half joking. Always read and appreciate your insight. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Kart Mozart Posted 3 hours ago Share Posted 3 hours ago 27 minutes ago, tunafish said: I've been contemplating making an AI bot account to automatically post the tldr; versions of your posts. I wanted to test out of it would have the desired result and the initial attempt resulted in a text body even longer than yours. AI still has a ways to go it seems. The short version (TL;DR) He’s saying: A major, fast, and violent pattern change in the North Pacific around Jan 6–8 is likely. That change will probably force a stronger-than-expected ridge in western North America, which in turn means models are likely underestimating how amplified (extreme) the downstream pattern will be over the eastern U.S. around Jan 7. Bottom line: don’t trust the details yet — bigger swings are favored. Now let’s unpack the jargon. Line-by-line translation “I think we need to consider the 6-7-8 a pattern arrival event” ➡️Around January 6–8, a new large-scale weather pattern is expected to fully arrive. Think of this as: the atmosphere reorganizes itself rather than just day-to-day weather noise. “That's going to be an H.A. implication (I suspect…)” ➡️ “H.A.” = Height Anomaly (upper-air pressure departures from normal). He’s saying this pattern change will strongly affect upper-level pressure patterns, not just surface weather. “all ens systems agree in the rather abrupt guard change in the N. Pacific” ➡️All ensemble models agree that there’s a sudden flip in the North Pacific pattern. “Guard change” = the atmosphere switches roles quickly (like defense → offense). This agreement is important — it means the signal is probably real. “The entire circulation medium out there essentially product reverses” ➡️ The whole North Pacific flow flips (ridges become troughs, troughs become ridges). “like on a temporal dime… Really fast… intra-weekly time scale.” ➡️ This happens very fast, within a few days, not weeks. Meteorologists don’t like this — fast changes break models. Why this matters for forecasts “that's likely to cause increased model performance problems” ➡️ Models struggle when the atmosphere changes this quickly. So details beyond a few days become unreliable. “sending such a violent signal downstream” ➡️ A big Pacific change ripples eastward across North America. Weather patterns behave like waves — a hard shove upstream creates chaos downstream. “the western N/A ridge will be in a period… correction vector… toward more amplitude” ➡️ As models adjust, they will likely correct toward a stronger western North America ridge. “More amplitude” = higher ridges deeper troughs bigger temperature swings more extreme outcomes “more than is currently in the cinemas” ➡️ Current model maps are too tame. Reality is likely bigger and sharper. “wave # number/distribution argument” ➡️ This is deep meteorology, but in plain English: The way large planetary waves are rearranging forces compensation elsewhere. If heights crash in one region, they must build in another. “supplant the regions N of HA with… height anomaly reversal” ➡️ When upper-level pressure drops hard in the North Pacific, physics demands that pressure builds somewhere else — in this case: ➡️ Western North America “there will physically necessitate height growth into western North America” ➡️ A strong western ridge is basically unavoidable. This is the key sentence. Why New England should care “More than 50%… closer to 80%… takes place in < 5 days” ➡️ This is an extremely rapid atmospheric reorganization. Which means: Models haven’t “caught up” yet Downstream details are suspect “I would be reeeally leery about any depictions down stream over eastern N/A” ➡️Do not trust model specifics for the eastern U.S. yet. Snow vs rain, cold vs warm — all still very fluid. “more amplitude is actually favored” ➡️ When things settle, expect bigger extremes, not moderation. For New England, that usually means one of these, depending on timing: Sharper cold shots Stronger storms Higher snow potential or sharper cutters Bigger pattern swings overall “That all times around the 7th for some sort of emergence E of the nations midriff longitudes.” ➡️ Around January 7, the effects of this pattern change should start clearly showing up east of the Mississippi. That’s when things “pop.” The Big Picture (in normal human language) He’s essentially warning other mets: “Hey — the Pacific is about to flip hard and fast. That almost guarantees a stronger western ridge than models currently show. Because this happens so quickly, models will struggle and probably underplay how extreme things get downstream. Expect bigger swings over the eastern U.S. around Jan 7 — and don’t lock into specifics yet.” If you want, next we can: Apply this specifically to New England snow/cold odds Decode what this implies for storm track vs cold supply Or compare this to past winters with similar Pacific flips Actually, kinda neat. Or the AI translation: This is a useful reorganization of the meteorologist's thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dendrite Posted 3 hours ago Share Posted 3 hours ago 31 minutes ago, tunafish said: Before you respond in earnest, I'm half joking. Always read and appreciate your insight. The joke is on you. This is what he sees when he posts. 1 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWolf Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago 3 hours ago, jbenedet said: January 6th system is warm. CONUS and Canada cooked. It will want to warm sector where most of us live. You’re making a bad bet on hoping for this to turn to a big snowstorm. I think you told us this last one , on Friday night(12/26), wasn’t gonna be anything at all..,and as I said to you then, then that pretty much guarantees us a hit. And low and behold…we score with 8-10”. This too should guarantee another good hit. You sir, may not be the dumbest person in the world, but you better hope the dumbest person doesn’t die. 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnoSki14 Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago 3 hours ago, jbenedet said: “Pattern shift….” Careful what you wish for. There’s some naive optimism in seeing less mid level troughiness on the west coast but this is not without losing cold anoms in Canada. After first few days of January risk is tilted warm, even in the northeast. There’s some indications also, that the MJO makes a pass to 4/5/6 which are all warm phases for Jan. Pattern looks like trash around hr240 on the ensembles. Deluded to be getting excited for big snow from day 9ish on.. I'm very cautious about a huge snowy pattern but even I recognize this post as BS. How in the world do the ensembles look like trash 240+ If anything they're showing a rising PNA ridge. I think this post is just as deluded as the social media weenie blizzard posts from JB The 12z EPS looks pretty awesome to me actually. There's some big dog potential second week of Jan. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago 2 minutes ago, SnoSki14 said: I'm very cautious about a huge snowy pattern but even I recognize this post as BS. How in the world do the ensembles look like trash 240+ If anything they're showing a rising PNA ridge. I think this post is just as deluded as the social media weenie blizzard posts from JB He has to be trolling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWolf Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago 2 minutes ago, MJO812 said: He has to be trolling The sad part is he’s not trolling…he thinks he knows something. But we know he doesn’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago Just now, WinterWolf said: The sad part is he’s not trolling…he thinks he knows something. But we know he doesn’t. I guess he didnt look at the ensembles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nianticct Posted 1 hour ago Share Posted 1 hour ago Online degree in meteorology is very dangerous! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted 1 hour ago Share Posted 1 hour ago I don’t know I think the pattern looks decent. The only thing I might be picky about is that late bloomers might be almost too late if that ridge is too far east over the plains versus the Rockies. But beyond that the EPO strengthens, and I think it looks good overall. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted 1 hour ago Share Posted 1 hour ago I mean, it’s January in Canada and you’ll have a ridge poking into Alaska. You don’t need a polar vortex over Hudson Bay. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Valley Snowman Posted 1 hour ago Share Posted 1 hour ago I don't have access but I heard from the ENSO thread that the weeklies today were a solid look for the eastern US. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted 22 minutes ago Share Posted 22 minutes ago 3 hours ago, tunafish said: Before you respond in earnest, I'm half joking. Always read and appreciate your insight. and I tried to keep that brief! LOL Btw, H.A. are initials. Heather Archembault released a Master's thesis back in the early 1990s that discussed the restoring of +PNA lending to enhancing precipitation over eastern North America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted 7 minutes ago Share Posted 7 minutes ago 1 hour ago, CoastalWx said: I don’t know I think the pattern looks decent. The only thing I might be picky about is that late bloomers might be almost too late if that ridge is too far east over the plains versus the Rockies. But beyond that the EPO strengthens, and I think it looks good overall. I agree... but the "Pope's" caveats, albeit a bit salty and mean sounding ( haha ) are unfortunately with merit. Truth is, pattern structure is only A B comes when we start to see how the dailies start arriving and fit into it. Is it going to be a 'warm variant', or is there cold available... Cold when counts... etc. Yes, climo ... but ( and I have no compunctions in admitting this - ) climo is fucked now in mid winters. That much is just true whether anyone else admits and/or has a problem with that or not. That's the beauty of actual statistics, and, science that is backed by the actual statistics: it's true whether one is in the conversation or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now