Typhoon Tip

Fwiw, the GEFs has bodily moved west, by several grid points actually. Even has a fair number of middling depth members straddling the BM. 12z left, 18 right Probably should also add... sense of this is a middle ranged cyclone ... a correcting west track has possibility, but the sub 980 idea of the GFS probably doesn't pass the middle range amplitude dimming aspect.

Yeah, wind and snow for a dome team like Houston...

the AIGFS did not actually adjust NW from what I'm seeing. It was just a little stronger in the cyclonic envelope and by virtue of that slight increase ... expanded by a small margin around all quadrants. This may have given the allusion to a NW adjustment. I guess tho that's kind of quibbling ... I mean, if it ended up at 978 mb, it will have expanded it's impact radius that much more and I don't think it really matters sensibly - if you're in, you're in

A reason I think you'll have a better chance with this thread, Ray ...is the error trends as of late considering all guidance. If that correction recurs, we're in business on this one. This event tomorrow into Friday morning, upstate NY up the ST L S was actually the original system that even the Euro was impressive for several ( not a couple ) cycles about 4 or so days ago... The Euro did not really do terribly better than the GFS - I don't know if folks are aware that the system in U NY is in fact the 15/16 cyclone space. Anyway, all these guidance were not wrong about the storm 'existing' - as we discussed earlier. The recognition of the pattern amplitude by many of us was actually spot on. Where the system takes place is the devil in this case, but ... it was actually en masse a reposition to the current strike region as outline above. It seems that's been a leitmotif this season from my recall where systems have been correcting west. While certainly true that we must consider every situation uniquely, there's certainly also wisdom in noticing whether the circumstances have changed appreciably so - if not... it's reasonable to assume that this Euro track will correct west in time. Having said all that ... we still are dealing with wave harmonics issues in lacking. The neg interference in the general circulation circumstance is only allowing narrow windows for amplitude at the cyclone/S/W scales. But as this one today up N of ALB is showing, they're still occurring nonetheless. We have a shot in this case...

Could it be onto something? sure - However ... sufficed it is to say, this type of solution does not have a lot of support from much else at this time - haven't seen the 12z Euro just yet. Now, ... philosophically and based upon a-priori approach, whenever you see a compact system moving so fast, at 100+ hours ... it's like taking a normal pattern storm relationship at D7.5 error, and applying it to the 4.5 day window. That doesn't diminish the need/desire to monitor the evolution on future guidance, nor dismiss it. Much like what's going on tomorrow and Friday with the snow storm along the ST L... there's actually a storm on these date in the local neighborhood - obviously, having failed to place that in our regional back yard doesn't diminish that reality, nor that the amplification window produced.

well, remember our discussion yesterday ... get the v trajectory S, huh

I'm not trying to sound dickish by this ...buuuut I f'n knew this solution was coming by at least one of these guidance at 12z, re the 18-19 one of these in an endless stream of suspect wave amplitudes. I've refrained from any comment re that possibility, and the overnight quite obvious tendency to move this system NW by all model ( BTW!), because of one - possibly - sobering reason. The ensemble means at 00z and as far as I could tell... 06z, have almost no reflection of that taking place. Then ...I did internally wondered if that might not matter? Here's the reason why? Short version: the higher resolution operational versions may score better in higher sensitive regimes - which this is a whopper predicament we are in throughout the next 10 or so days. Longer version: This is a compressed +PNA flow, which means we are inherently in a 'needle thread' scenario. Whenever you see a progressive system ( i.e., not slowing down, getting captured... stalling, obvious low level blocking like higher +PP N of Maine...et), that presents a scenario where deterministic forecasting is very sensitive to very minute adjustment in track. The all or nothing become more qualitatively possible. That said, the higher resolution, more "soup up" operational members of these ens systems might also be more likely to "see" those minute crucial physics prior to the ensemble means - being that they are comprised of ( usually ) coarser grids and have physics that are experimental and thus may mask things...

Ha, true OH yeah ... we can peel this onion of presumptive fallacy of entitlements down many layers.

Perhaps one day ... there will be a weather modification grid invented when Quantum particle/wave physics gets so advanced they realize, okay ... we cannot predict the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle and the spontaneous emergence of forces in the natural "organic" cause-and-effect reality out in time, BUT... we can compensate by imposing our own. I.e., controlling the day 10 chart as opposed to hitting a probabilistic limiations at 73.4% ( ( I'm taking sci fi licence at the moment ...) Frankly, what a dystopian future that would be. Not having the magic of uncertainty - it's just magic and be light or dark.

Yup.. and I'm also not really too focused on where it reaches max amplitude. What going to transpire ...literally, right next door in the Meteorological context, is sufficient for a significant snowfall. - but to your implicit point, we got screwed. Nonetheless, there is/was value in having recognized this period, absolutely.

Huh .. you know, I'm finding I have to remind myself that it is mid January, so 48/32 is pretty damn hot relative to climo. Definitely some recency bias on my part because we've had a lot of these 40s days in January's in these years, and I'm not appreciating the 45+ers as much as I perhaps should be.

I just wanna point something out before we move on from the 15/16th in the spirit of philosophy, objectivity and fairness. These storm dates did not fail. What failed was our "regional backyard" ? I get the importance of actually getting it into our backyard - but that is unfortunately a myopic and frankly dim intelligence about the reality we are a part. This is the NAM's 24 hours - I'm just using it to make the point. There is a storm resulting from anticipating amplitude from over a week ago. Meteorologically, this is acceptable, particularly considering that this period was sussed out .. perhaps even 10 days prior. Again, it just ended up in southern Ontario and lower Quebec

It's an interesting psycho-babble thing ... it is. I mean, it's like that comedy bit by Louis C.K. where he outlines a flight and a passenger, never having been exposed to this technology whereby he can access his iphone while in flight, throws shade and criticizes the airline and attendants because 10 minutes into usage a couple internet pages 404 errored. "This sucks! This is an outrage! This is total bullshit.." 10 min ago, this passenger had zero awareness they could access the internet, from their iphone, while sitting in a chair, at 30 thousand feet, moving 500 mph ... Louis goes on to muse. Absolutely fucking hilarious as he exposes these entitled oblivion perspectives put on by this scowl-faced entitled person in square-mouthed rage... But something similar happens with this technology in modeling. For some reason, folks tend to less respectful, acting in a kind of indignant entitlement to the advantages and then criticizing it all without a realistic perspective. Technology and eases that it provides ... it tends to cancel humility. Personally ... the models are hugely improved ( actually ) compared to 20 years ago. However, there are CC related changes - also - that I suspect are relatively new in the history of the modeling tech, and there's some discovery there/user experience-related. We always used to know/have a feel for how things would outcome, based upon history of performance ... Those histories are less reliable, because the patterns are behaving differently - even if subtle and idiosyncratically, this appears to have a disproportionately larger impact on user experience, because those expected behaviors are not qualifying as well. This gives a faux impression of models sucking... heh. It's really more that the models are improving, and are being particularly challenged at the same time. But the users are suffering some 'chair at 30 k feet/500 mph' oblivion, too

altho, funny ... I just got done with a lecture point about theta-e deficits and this panel way out there turns around and demos a magnificent source... LOL

Unlikely, unfortunately