Typhoon Tip

Yeah Chris ...I agree ...I added that exact aspect to that post

stating the obvious... any "blend" technique is always going to miss the extreme, unless every member contributing to the mean are unilaterally nailing the result/coincidentally. Since this is never going to be the case, the interquartile members that are middle road and less so, are always offsetting - basic stats. Hence, blend missing the extremes in the west. But part of that is also not really attainable anyway? I don't believe so. Because the heat in the W was very synergistic in nature. It's basically combing a handful of inputs that are going to likely gestalt some gain that cannot really be preascertained. That's how synergistic emergence is... it can't be mathematically predicted in excessively complex systems - at least not yet. Maybe QC will have a say in that some day. But we have the perennial N/A western bulge in the westerlies, on top of a retrograde IA CGT hemisphere, on top of a terrain that promotes heat and then a subsequent bi-product of that is that the heat in turn bulges heights... on top of then even a kind of non-Markovian feedback when the quantum state of the whole system acts like it "wants" to be hot due to memory from aggregate occurrences... Those are some of the parts that are creating an outcome > then just their sum. I guess what I'm asking is, taking out the more extreme/warmest members contributing to any blend, I suspect even those were shy of the scalar ?

Just op-ed'ing about the use of 'climate'-based tools in general. No idea what and/or who is performing. Like I said, if the model's adaptive than the criticism's less necessary there. But that's something that seldom - in fact never as far as I'm aware ? - goes on in this 'enthusiast's sophistication', which is reporting about the construct of tools. Comparing it's components ( unit test) against empirically what is actually taking place, whereby confidences have foundations... etc. yeah right...

Meanwhile the 3.4 sector is at historic levels relative to September +ENSO typology. And I mean somewhere between gaspingly and laughably so ... Kind of hard to think CANSIPs is onto much of anything other than introducing error when 3.4 is the opposite direction of eastern orientation. huh It is what it is I suppose but frankly - and I realize I've excoriated over this in the past... - anything with the letter "C" in the acronym of a model's title rolls my eyes. Unless the C does not stand for Climatology, the given model's machinery has to have some sort of a updated "RONI" analog methodology or it's less useful to me. Obviously ... because we'd be comparing a present day moving goal post on a fixed game field - the two have to change geometry together to be valid... No offense to CANSIPs. LOL if the model's adaptive than fine. But even if so ... the orientation as of the Sep 9 update at CPC just looks like a massive pan-dimension heat bomb from eastern 4 clear to the masses of fish adorning the Peruvian shores. Not sure any sector out there is really crucially 'bigger' in the holistic comparison when the entire thing is nuked like that

"Supreme Court rejects Trump's plan to limit mail-in voting in midterms" -CNN Gee, maybe there's hope for the sovereign identity of the U.S.A.

You didn’t ask me, but it was most likely related to the IA circum-global teleconnector

Mm... not going to defend that meme, no... however, it smacked me as more of the humorist voice - an attempt at sarcasm, perhaps sardonic giggles. I do that sometimes. I write something outlandish, with vivid descriptions of the physicality in dire consequences, over-the-top, as though people are in the room with me and can actually hear my tone of voice. Oops... It may be possible this was where he was coming from - if he had just said something like 'nyuk nyuk' on the end of it, you could hear that as Jay Leno-ism sarcastic barb

Thanks Don ( and forward TheClimateChanger ) What's disturbing about these kind of graphical results - which an observant sort may have noted over the years, they are not linearly rising, rather exponential - is that even if humanity's contribution to climate change were unrealistically ( impossible hypothetic state) suspended all at once, there seems to be a forgotten realization: The damage caused won't actually fully register for a number of decades. People don't realize just how dire this situation has become. The 2023 spring's ~ 1/2 a whole deg C leap in global wholesale systemic temperature, spanning mere months, evinces that there is a lag in the realization. People just stared at it. Moreover, the portions that are realized, ... are not always "catching up" in a kind, gentle administration. That proves they are unpredictable - otherwise, machine and man would have had a fucking clue that phenomenon was going to occur at all. That singular event should be vastly more alarming than humanity seems to have registered - evidenced be reactions et al. You just succeeded in moving an entire planetary system, a whole planet, ~ 4 orders of magnitude more thermal energy than if the entire world's nuclear armament were immediately expended. And really, the collective reaction so torpid argues that the en masse either doesn't respect, or cannot doesn't dimensionalize that significance for what it was. Either way, "life can't morally just go on as usual", yet it did and does, without the necessary imperative, much less very much if any reproach. So what happens over the next decade(s)? Humanity only sees the weather of the present era ... There's an overwhelming tendency to recency bias there. There's a stark failure to extrapolate/visualize what this sort of future will bring because ... as an aside, despite our innovation capacity, that capacity doesn't extend nearly as far into the realm of consequence. In fact, the reaction appears to be entirely guided by what can be actually seen - so is entirely recency bias. Humans won't act with any sense of imperative until that threat is appealing. Meanwhile, continuing to add to a system that has a built in time delay, because the oceans are 90% absorbing of the thermal imbalance created by the shock C02 and other green house gases the last 300 years of human activity has fluxed into the planetary system. Thereof is a calculation where that storage takes another 50+ years to recursively then find the longer term thermal equilibrium, in a truer ocean-atmospheric coupled state. One has to think of this as a built-in 'getting worse' factor - a scalar extent of which is completely unknown. But the specters of the last decade as any indicator? ...mm We can think of extrapolation thermal curves based upon varying exponentials... but, try extrapolating "phenomenological and/or consequence curves" themselves. None of which takes into consideration the "synergistic products" along the way.. Ironically, I happened across this article on Phys.org just this morning, "Future catastrophic weather could be 'far worse' than history suggests" ( https://phys.org/news/2026-09-future-catastrophic-weather-worse-history.html ) ..perhaps apropos

the partial right amount is precisely = to the amount that is doubted

The Euro's dystopian for the MA in that time range. Worthy of a "wow" if it were not for the fact that neither solution will be there on the next run cycle from this range..

i think that's in AMS' official glossary, yeah... 5 = torch

We know this ... but just in case. The idea that acorns can predict a wet warm or snowy cold winter has very low or no skill as a forecasting metric. Years with perceived surpluses of acorns have nothing to do with ensuing seasonality. According to all science/peer reviewal, those were influenced/triggered by past environmental factors - so yeah... , it was cold and snowy last year. or warm and wet... which ever. tell us what we already know. but obviously... we are so fantastically bored -

One aspect that lurks that I'd be careful to mention is that single event results tend to exceed QPF at an observably increasing frequency over recent decades ... I feel this needs to be a bullet point in seasonal forecasting summaries. Don't linger on it per se. Just a mention is needed. this is already papered/correlated to increased ambient WV in the overall machinery of the planet. There appears to be a synergistic phenomenology - handsome words to say that when we are raining or snowing or sleeting or hailing or whatever, when doing so through higher WV mass, favors "positive busts" The models seem to be physically challenged in this area, too - although I don't mean to claim that is true. Just that I keep seeing real events where 30" of rain in 24 hours falls and models might have had an "eye-popping" foot of rain as it is. Heh, it is almost as though eye-popping is a warming that there a GOATie uh oh'er a-comin' I was just thinking that in a year that may be a shitty wet warm one, a single snower could be something truly short duration historic. Like shock and awe given that scale/degree of ENSO plausibly feeding two sources of WV+: the ENSO itself, together with the ambient argument. That's like synergy, then synergizing yet further, in a single event that happened to roll a 7 cold enough airmass at the right time. A couple of storms like this and we have an average snow year ...when the real story ends up being the flooding next March. LOL 63" of blue snow at ORH and National Guard only reserved for Science Fiction, right? I mean that's rhetoric for fun there... but think back to December 23 1997. The day before that happened, the then 'ETA' ( grandfather to the soon-to-be made extinct blood lined NAM) model had something like .6" of total QPF at Logan, in a sounding that was -3 at 800, 0 and 900, and +2 mid way up the Pru' tower altitude. Very little or no QPF at ALB, which was colder... Now, the forecast was probably in error anyway. It was 1-3" of transparent glop for the Worcester Hills, to raining a cat paw or two down town Boston... I Emailed Harvey and thought that was too wet. I was not right enough! Because 20" of snow later, an amount that fell in 5 hours, pretty much herald in the era of choke snow deposition rates... I had seen and heard of 3 and even an unimaginable 4" in a single hour though rarely. Not a 7, book-ended by a couple of 5s! These types of events have been occurring world over, too. Rain or snow, with increasing frequency since the late 1990s. That ENSO that year ... mm seems like a climo revolving door sometimes to me.