Typhoon Tip

same over here

Wanna fire up a thread for the 9-15"er on Friday? LOL

Pretty much. Yes. The important underlying concept is "restoring" ... Any anomaly is in an unstable state; nature is always trying to restore back to a state of entropy, or inaction. Thus, action will occur to bring it back to a state of inaction. That is occurring always, in perpetuo, at all scales. So, when you have an anomaly, relative to another anomaly ...like this week, like -PNA, inside of which there is a +d(PNA) on the other of multiple SD... the -PNA may blind the advent of an arena, within which favors the production of a restoring event. All storms are restoring events. It's just a matter of how the restoration goes about finding balance. Global scaled indices, don't produce storms... per se. But, they are indicators for arenas/temporally boundary regimes that are conducive to needing restoration. If you get this .. you can immediately intuitively gather that when nesting anomalies within other anomalies, the complexity gets pretty bad pretty quickly. We have to determine the roots, and balance those.

Dude... ha. no shit but excluding the SW zones/NY megalopolis, that SNE snow layout is about as close to a twin to 1978 Feb as I've seen. This system is no analog but I just find that interesting.

Agreed... despite my campaigning for NW positions in all this, I have also made it clear that SE positions are 'within the cone of uncertainty' as that vamp goes. I mean they can happen in this. There's compelling reason to see NW ... maybe helluva now-casting opportunity, too, but that doesn't mean things will do that. Anyway, should the EC/RGEM prevail, it is what it is. Not impossible. I wills say though, despite the over night runs seemingly halting the NW corrections? That may have only been a relaxation. These globals in a minute are going to be interesting to compare against the higher res west corrections we just witnessed. Right? wow. And the RGEM did in fact just tick NW so.. mm... it's still in the air a bit .

I've also upgraded my home sys and run Windows 11 these days - which I don't like for other reason..ha. I seem to have less issue with Firefox - which also was pretty bad back in the day. I may check out Brave and see. I need to be able to turn off trajectories tho. And I'll never use Google - so if Brave is affiliated with that engine I'd probably defer.

Yup...this is a nice condensate of the points. Thing is... I like writing and creating metaphors and going for fun absurdities along the way ... some folks find it entertaining. I get more accolades for the effort than I do distraction along the way. I'm good

I figure you're probably talking phones ... but just sayn', I tried that browser on my P.C. once ...I guess years ago at this point, so it may be improved since, but there were memory leak issues. Started getting stuttering with mouse trajectories across the GUI ... which are soothingly nervy when/if your in a hurry. Then I'd go into the task management and it'd be running something like a 30,000 gigs of RAM on the web browser and the perf tab is logging close to 100% usage. Phones may be different... but I've never gone back to that browser.

D-drip O.D. here

Don't forget ... NW bias (... it's always awesome to find a mouse pellet in your raisin toast, huh ) hahahaha. yeah, no... in this situation, like I just wrote about a minute ago, I feel the N-W solutions have some merit. That's really what it comes down to; the NAM does ongoing support a N-W bias at this time range, but some situations ...that's an advantage - or can be. Case in point, Dec 2005. Granted there's been some pretty significant model improvements in the last 20 year ( haha), but back in the day ...the globals were all SE of the NAM, even the day before that event. I recall writing a pretty spot on disco as to why the ETA model was likelier to be ( exceptionally) correct. It had to do with identify the surface to 800 mb frontal position, along which there was extraordinarily dense thermal packing, making said frontal slope very upright. This is an environment feebdack that the resolution of the globals of the day... mm probably missed? But when mid level jet first nosed over that boundary, it was instant bombogen where the UVM was hyper focus and was tapping the improving diffluence as the jet continue to advance. Set off a host of other feedbacks...it grew so intense there was a tropopausal fold event...and the underside stinger brought 100 mph wind gusts that no one knew were coming. I didn't even see that... what an amazing thing that was. wow. Anyway, that's all a fast sloppy write sojourn ... In this situation, all the globals as I wrote earlier seem to be biased ( more or less) SE of the best q-g forcing. This really seems like a situation where the initial low trigger should be closer to the Del Marva stinger, and then hug bit closer where the 500 mb diffluence jet velocity is stronger... then, that parlays, because the storm then captures farther west ...if only 50 miles makes all the difference in some case. When the two collocate, that proficiency than means even stall possibilities ...all of which would be NW of the 54 hour positions offered up by the global runs overnight. christ ..i have stop writing so much... maybe i just grab all these and dump them into a weather diary novel. that's idea lol

Marginal ... At 24 hours, prior to the amplitude setting up over the MA, the heights over the Florida Panhandle are 582 N, to 584-ish S, which is on the fence ... arguable a very minor stressing of that hypothetical rule. However, the other part of that, which is actually the more important aspect, the wind flags are < 40 kts on average. That means that the flow is not preconditioned to a compressed state. Such that as the S/W/phase going on over top in latitude, doesn't have the southern momentum being absorbed in the baseline velocity anomaly. Words get a bit pricey in that... but it has to do with whether a wind max is actually differentiable in the U component of the flow. For example, if the ambient velocity of the flow (U component) is humming along at 70 kts, and a powerful S/W with a 110 kts wind max up in Manitoba has it's sights set on the TV ... as it descends the stream lines, it's 110 -70 = 40 kts of differential. Not terrible. But, if the ambient flow is only 30 kts, that becomes a much bigger velocity left over to force jet responses. The sign that the former "robbing"/absorption is taking place, the vorticity begin to slope backward and the trough's axis into the southern flanks looks/bends back positive. Longer than I wanted... In this case, the marginal limitation is easily overcome. Arithmetically, this whole amplitude has vast momentum compared to a 584 dm hgts, with limited or 0 geostrophic wind anomaly.

Bun me if you must ... but this is a little frustrating seeing these runs get cute with their position fixes in that 48 to 70 hour window overnight. This look above, is theoretically more supported than any other guidance I've seen, including the GFS, since 3 days ago frankly. It doesn't mean that the low has to come within 40 MI S of Block Island like that ... for the record. However, there's a leitmotif along this thing's modeling history has lacked commitment to where this thing should be, relative to a few different synoptic arguments, wave signature(s) and mass conservation and stuff. I've said multiple times over the years that this pursuit is a game of managing nested anomalies. We have a -PNA, which principle, is an anomaly; inside which we have a positive relative PNA burst, also an anomaly relative to the former. Inside which hosts this anomalous event, inside of which ... the idiosyncrasies of track and storm morphology dictates a pedestrian showing N-W of roughly HFD-BOS ... while limiting the ferocity SE of that line. The inner most nested anomaly has the surface preferential to a SE position within 'the cone' - so to speak. It's annoying. Be that as it may ... But - as an example - if we look at 42 hour surface featuring of the 06z Euro operational, there is low position ~ 75 to 100 MI E of the Va Capes. At that time the best quasi-geostrophic forcing is not there. It's WNW around the Ches. Bay side of the Del Marva stinger. But this is like teeing off in Golf (metaphor), where you swore you swung a great stroke but you hit the ball 1 deg off the sweet spot and that tiny error ends up being an unsavory fairway fringe lie by the time the ball gets 300 yds down stream. Just a knee jerk guess ... the models are ending up mid way between the best deep layer forcing, and what may be irresistible ...ultimately real mad mad convective instability out there.

We talked about it last night or maybe it was a night before? QPF is not nearly as important as identifying the machinery the cyclone at this range cause that’s gonna get moved around like kids with finger paint for the next 24 to 48 hours.

I looked at it. It’s not that noticeable. Put it this way it’s within a margin of air of noise and it doesn’t make any difference. It’s actually deeper so it’s splitting hairs The biggest difference is the QPF distribution, but we’ve already been over that. There’s more guidance source is still doing the northwest ticking so I don’t think it means anything yet. We need more than one cycle that and it has to be more obvious than what I’m seeing

He’s probably waiting on NWS to pull their trigger