Typhoon Tip

What's up with these operational Euro and GFS just wildly gung ho happy capping summer the rest of the way. ah, okay - 'course, they tried selling that shit last month and we ended up with a heat wave for the trouble, so we'll see. But they keep carving out these anachronistic SPV bombs across S Canada - right at the climate-signaled pattern flaccidity time of the year, no less. The Euro's even trying to suppress summer in the west after their heat wave next week...suppressing summer down to TX But Europe's dead meet in ensembles. wow. The same exact bizarre repeating Omega block is now showing up from for the UK down the Iberian Peninsula. In fact, it looks even more idealized than the previous for a week from now.

It's like two things are true simultaneously. The system is going to prove too amplified by leading guidance. But, where it rains... because of other factors the rain gets exaggerated - not because of the same amplitude of the model cinemas ... So of course everyone's going to credit the wrong shit.

NAM appears to have already busted too wet in CT through 15Z ... Just a quick eye-balling of rad trends over the morning hours, looks like primarily light right with a few moments in there of moderate have taken place thus far. I can't imagine what's in the rain cans from that rad evolution, matches that plume of QPF the model painted moving through there over the same time - again...just a cursory look over. So those justifying your d-drip highs, please don't be offended.

Don, what we feared is clearly materializing in the current ensemble means from all major source. This is what I saying a week or so ago when I kidded you, 'if you wanna look brilliant, warm Europe now'. This flow construct below is just as idealized, and it is also taking place closer to the climatological apex of the N.H. summer - altho the climate doesn't/shouldn't modulate discrete forecasts, but it does buffer doubt when considering the repeating aspect here - it's hard to knock consistency. UK and the Iberian Peninsula at under the gun again.

An aspect you doubter and/or deniers and/or skeptics may need to consider more closely is that H20 in the atmosphere requires heat to maintain vapor form. I'm reading a lot in here that is entirely temperature related, but global warming/climate change is vastly more complex. The temperature is but a smaller fractional evidence of the total global quota in additive heat. That heat in homogenized atmosphere is taken from the kinetic temperature ( which is the temperature on the thermometers). That means as more water evaporates into gaseous form, the temperature metric comes down. The metric that measures the amount of moisture in the air, the Dew Point, rises. This tells you that the heat must also be rising. This can be masked if one focuses on temperature alone. 110F/ 55 is, by thermodynamic physical laws, colder than 99/80. By a large amount in fact. The ambient water vapor in the atmosphere is corroborated across multiple disciplines, from direct empirical measure to eventually satellite spectroscopy, altogether altogether demonstrating the ambient planetary water vapor has risen since the IR. Where is it getting its heat required to do so? C02, and then secondarily other species like CH3/4 (Methane) ... etc, are added to the ambient global atmosphere. These enhance storage capacity i.e., more heat stored. This causes a positive feedback. It adds to the baselines green-house physics (1), but of more import this heat (2) in turn provides more heat to evaporate more moisture. This process is called thermodynamics of phase changes; when also involving multiple compounds in the arithmetic, the contributing roots to GW is non-linear. I would suggest remedial education into the physical processes involved. By understanding that, you might light bulb that attribution science is something you could and definitely should understand before you doubt.

I wish Brain would put an AI filter of sorts that screens content ... just before the it commits to post, and if it sees 'NAM' in context to 3" of rain or 30" of snow, it bounces the post back to the poster with a message that reads "THE NAM HAS A N-W BIAS!"

Euro almost pulls the rug ... priceless if so. It actually does for N of the Pike almost entirely on this run. I was gonna say ... another mitigating factor is that the models seem to over-amplify everything they ever handle these days that's beyond 48 hours. This is repeatingly bearing out in results ... yet, funny, so few ever mention this when the next catastrophic model Rembrandt pushes the d-drip button. LOL Seriously though, there seems to a built in automatic attenuation. Whatever they've been pimping in the middle and extended range [enter goober here], either partial Charlie Browning if not a miss. While that's going on ... I'm separately leery anyway, whenever the models attempt to hone a mesobeta scale ( between meso and synoptic - ) sized region like this, middle range or not. If that's not all enough, why? There's almost nothing in the height evolution at 500 mb that suggests anything at all should be going on underneath... yet all hell's going nuts and no one's raising an eye-brow. Okay... I'll go along, but if this It's a trigger happy air mass with lingering PWAT in the region and a shallow boundary offering a reason to lift. It's got that goin for it. It may not need a lot of forcing to rain disproportionately heavy

ha...yeah, I guess as Mets we sometimes lock the doors and look at what we look at and don't pay as much attention to what other's are touting. This is probably becoming true about civility regardless of walks and purposes ... Between AI super-charged social media dopamine dripping, to media selling news ( which doomed humanity from ever knowing the truth once that breached the journalistic integrity threshold at some point 20 to 30 years ago and has only gotten completely fabricating since - run-on sentence ), people that seek guidance and truth tend to shut out the din of it all in lieu of what they know ( or at least "think" ) really works. But I digress... LOL ...little more than you wanted I'm sure. no but yeah I was referring to the model synoptics being pretty consistent with the heights receding/crossing back below 582 dm, while the MET machine coverage being consistent with mid 80s 'after' today. Since the latter fit the former.. done deal. I haven't been paying attention to much else over the last several days. Sew me.

Synoptic thoughts... Tomorrow should be cooler on the coast where there's likely to be the nascent yet still feeble onshore wind developing... In the interior, probably still makes the low 80s. The hydrostatic heights are not really falling very much below 570 dm, which is technically a very warm atmosphere relative to our climate. What could offset this, however ...is if we get more organized convection sparked off and rumbling through late today and night. SPC is currently loading everything well SW so ... not sure what their whys are in the matter - haven't read. Anyway...if it stays dry, 80s in the interior tomorrow looking at the soundings. But if gets wet, that would process out the "non-Markovian" memory of the system and we'd end up more shallow cool below synoptic inversion ... There really isn't a BD front being analyzed by WPC ( tho they seldom do)...but looking around at area obs/sat, there isn't one. The main b-c axis is up along the ST S-way, pretty far NW. But, with heights receding it's like the NAM is sort of instantiating a boundary - which isn't physically impossible to see a frontogenesis of sorts, if the flow aloft has height falls while speeding up.. The Euro and GFS seem to be doing the same thing.... It's why we get all that rain ( maybe...) the day after tomorrow. That nascent boundary provides an isotropic lifting interface, and because the flow to push it south is ultimately too weak to actually do so... we may start training a bit. It's an interesting set up. Very weak synoptic forcing, with high volatility/PWAT access... The latter is pseudo-adiabatically very unstable. It can over perform with less motivation to do so. But ... it doesn't set well with me that the NAM, which is a sneaky great tool for 'convective initiation' that few know about or use ... (sorry to see this aspect be lost by the majority that don't), has paltry totals through Monday night. Maybe 12z comes around a bit...

Heh ... appears on schedule to me. It's a tedious examination perhaps but just sayn' It's 88/72 with ample sun and light W to WNW wind... We'll likely make the MAV 92 to 94s which has been in forecast for some time.

It is … … it’s physically impossible not to be causally related.

Too dry.. that stuff out there was triggered by the complex of Lake boundaries ...then some secondary enhancing by terrain. I bet that has trouble come E into the lowering SBCAPE - it may evolve SE of the flow where there's more instability.

92

We are actually ahead of yesterday by 2-5 degrees from what I'm seeing/estimating using this NWS product (it's out of the GRR office but I like it) https://www.weather.gov/wrh/hazards?obs=true&wfo=grr It's a drag and drift over product. Click on the image, hold and pull and it slides around all over the god's creation. Anyway, yesterday we were 86-ish most sites, with Logan the only one that 90 by 10 am. If you click on the point sites the product offers the 5 minute to hrly obs for the last day(s), so if I were not so lazy I could verify my comments here. LOL I may be wrong but it seems we're ahead by a little.