Typhoon Tip

Whether this is the case on January 15 ... who knows. But this is an apparent unique - perhaps historically so - state of affairs we are in heading into Autumn. When comparing other warm ENSOs that were anywhere near peers with this one, the PDO was in better agreement. Those being 1982-1983, 1997-1998 and 2015 very warm events. But, +.7 isn't 1.0 The offset .3 isn't exactly a trivial anticorrelation value. 30% of PDO/ENSOs didn't want to cooperate ( according to CDC). The qualitative difference being ... it is easier on intuition to see a weaker warm ENSO being more likely to anticorrelate - break downs in the machinery in weaker gradients..etc. However, very powerful ones would instinctively dominate the hemisphere because tall heat S abuts canonical seasonal lowering hgts N, and that's proficient coupling. That's the '82/'97/'15 events. This ENSO is (presumably) as powerful ( even in a RONI dimming consideration ... it's just too overwhelming? ) yet having this over-arcing -PDO is thus uncharted water ( pun hopefully annoying ... ) It's hard to say how that will impact the circulation 'scaffolding' of the hemisphere, should it persist. This latter bold being a key question. There is a modest pos correlation between the PDO and EPO in November, which strengthens significantly through the winter. This is intriguingly implicating for both warm and cool N/A. In a shortened planetary wave lengths, the -EPO dives the mean height anomaly distribution over the west. This correlates/teleconnects to ridging/+geopotential hgts 80W. But in the winter, when the wave lengths are necessarily long as a physical response to high seasonal velocity foot, the -EPO tends to mean the lower heights progress E fairly quickly. That's the reason -EPOs cause cold snaps. However, the STJ "should be" lurking over TX into the TV and lower MA; so what then should this mean if an ongoing -PDO/-EPO keeps sending in knuckle achers... This sort of 'unicorn' scenario has been discussed among some of us, already. It's not confident enough to predict... for one, we don't know if this -PDO/atmospheric circulation mod over the arc of the N. Pac will continue. You know, that big winter storm - the first of the two - that took place last winter is a reasonable implication/typology. That January one was a broad continental scale overrunning event really..

The ongoing -PDO is statistically quite suggestive of low coupling in a broader NINO relative hemisphere no question.

heh, as chilly as this seems ... we're actually above normal against climo with the day's lows so far. 68 to 70 is the climo max, BDL-FIT-ASH. Prooobably going to end up below that... we'll see but a sneaky effect here?

Right... I mean I just mentioned to wise-ass ( lol ) that it's not physically impossible.. I just wasn't going to get into a whole UVM 'stokes discussion about why latent heat release lowers heights ... Question is, how much and does it really drill down an anchor a surface low that the Euro's near bombogen rates needs to be 72 hours out for my taste. We'll see The other thing ... something happened about 10 or 15 years ago with modeling, et al. The general technological behavior seemed to unilaterally reverse. What used to be missed in the late mid range, suddenly became over amplified in general ongoing dependable practice. We colloquially refer to this as 'model magnification' but it's not like that's not doing that anymore. It's still a real tendency/hasn't gone away. Not having substantive S/W input into the arena, then ending up with multiple contours ... mmm sort smacks as a candidate for that oversell routine.

I know what he meant ... but in 'quantization of correctness', if one model has a single run that is correct and no other model shares in that distinction, that model is better than the other guidance. Frankly, I don't like this event for the way it is handled in the models, regardless. I won't downplay the intrigue, tho. With an at first isolated cold profile, then going hybrid core, the Euro solution appears to do a weak 'perfect storm' sort of hint there. Pretty fantastic and certainly entertaining at a minimum. But the issue I'm having is that this feed into the region is unremarkable. There seems to be some spontaneity in the behavior of lowering heights, and that's dubious in terms of handling for me. They appear to be deepening the whole construct/evolution from the non-linearity/transitive forcing - which ... is invisible by definition. Synergistic byproduct is an example of non-linearity... In this case, only having a very modest S/W (shrapnel really) moving through the S Lakes, suddenly attaining 18 dm of height implosion S of L.I. like that is a bit too much of something from nothing. So, it's not physically impossible? No. However, long years of experience with modeling, I can remember this type of modeled scenario as having higher error. The models et al are still beyond 4 days - my own confidence will slope up significantly < 4 days.

Unless it's right?

you didn't ask for this opinion but personally believe every teleconnector there is should be analyzed and reanalyzed for relative correlation. RNAO, RAO, RPNA, RWPO, REPO ... RPDO etc The implications of a -RPDO with a +RONI is then headachy different than the non-relativistic tandem -

RONI

I would just caution that when models start backing in deep layer lows at 5-7 day leads, it's usually symbolic if not processing as though 'getting ready' to collapse one way or another.

More concisely the point I was after ... AI is not a spontaneous emergence. It's not just you. There's a palpable vibe in the ongoing meme of it all, an ominous implication, as though it is an unstoppable spontaneous emergence. A lot of that is the "AI Executa"'s doing. They've certainly been helping to create an uncertain, if not unnerving scenario end game but ... has it never struck anyone as odd that no one has said the following yet? stop creating it Again, AI is not the threat; the human beings creating it are the threat. AI won't emerge on it's own. If there is that much daunting uncertainty as to the end game, then the solution in prevention is only unclear to a 5-year old. Anyway, so I am not really disagreeing with you that it could be an agency of harm? Of course that's true. That could come about both wittingly, or unwittingly. For fun: The "witting" rendition is that we are all being manipulated in a really diabolical way... The apparatus of progenitors of the "AI brain" (think giant cube in "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" ha!) are consummately warning of this that and the other thing, as though when we've arrived into any such state of affairs ( their actual goal), they can blame it on the 'we warned you' divisiveness. As though the consequence was built in, and not their fault - -as though it is ours for allowing them? That would never work, of course. As dumbed-down and feckless, willing to be led around and guided as we humans have become during these generational legs of the Industrial bubble, there's still enough intelligentsia in there to place blame appropriately should "Skynet" launch its proverbial missiles. However, here's the diabolical thing: they know that. They're not actually trying escape culpability - they really don't care. No morality there. No ...they're trying to diverge our attention along the way. All their warnings come off much like propagandizing its significance - popping out of the witting fantasy for a split second, perhaps that's the capitalistic mark-up. In fairness, the historical verdict is undecided... But one thing I'm noticing also is that it's keeping us stoned by our collect fascination. Maybe helped along by civility's apparent epidemic: psycho-tropic 'blue-light' dystopian addiction. As stimulation junkies, we just want the high from their story. ...until we are in a realm when it has become too late. What they've really created was the sociopath's utopia (ooh, that's a cool title for a book!) Heh, that's a fun James Bond plot perhaps. Scott Galloway, NYU professor among other accolades ... including is wealth, recently spoke on the subject of AI in ... I'm not sure whose pod-cast space, AI was built for the rich, not for you. I've appreciated his articulation/conjectures on sociodynamics and driving mechanisms of zeitgeist in past. Admittedly, I've only heard of this much quoted in this case, but the idea of this being "by design" ...mm does creep a little. He's right enough that an 'intrinsic circumstance' could be more likely, in my opinion - I mean who the hell else could afford the financing behind this type of transformative power? Then there's the unwitting rendition - which despite the fantastic above is actually a harder sell for me. Just because of the nature of what consciousness appears to be. That's why I cited Roger Penrose, and stopped just short of shamelessly punching my own published work on the matter ( nyuk nyuk). His et al was a Physical peer review. I did not know it existed prior or during when I set out to create my story. I stumbled upon the idea listening to NPR at a stop sign, circa 2004. They background sound leading the moment was an ongoing interview with a world renowned Neurophysiologist - no means to recall the name or salutation from this range. The conjectural concepts for my novel would come to eerily describe precisely the Penrose: magnetically conductive microtubules are instrumental in the emergence of consciousness. So you have independent sources arriving to similar notions: at one end, notoriety and resource, at the other, ...a no-name, utterly unknown church-mouse squeak during hymn on Sunday of a voice ... lucky enough to have caught the attention of a publishing house. There may be other ways in the Universe to create consciousness - duh. Perhaps "create" isn't the right word. Perhaps "emerge" really is the best and we should stick with that, because all science and perspectives (history) agrees that its origin is an emergence. We can confidently suggest at a minimum that all brains on earth are alive as long as they continue in a chemical-physiologically guided electrodynamic dance. The sparkling on invented tools that convert electroencephalography (EEG) for visualization, for example. They evince what ancient scholars already knew...etc. However consciousness is kind of separate from that. Penrose et al outright implicate Physically that it is not where consciousness originates, rather, quantum feedback is implied. As I told implicitly in my story, it is a synergistic byproduct of the same processing. So all brains are a chemical-physiologically guided electrodynamic process. The amount and coherence of synergistic emergence from that is variable. Consciousness is like gravity, though. Try and try as we must ... the brain trust of Humanity will never be able quantize gravity. The ambit will stubbornly continue to spent trillions on colliders and University legislation and never will. We can only say that the moon has less gravity than the sun, but both have their gravity. A mouse is less aware than the cat - likely why it is on the menu. But no cat has ever been both inside and outside the Cheshire space. Penrose et al would like to quantize consciousness. We cannot quantize consciousness. Consciousness, I strongly personally believe, is a field ...just like gravity. Just like magnetism. There ultimately - though needing some sort of exotic math and matching breakthroughs of philosophy thereof - exist so long as other actions persist - probably occurring at the same speed as quantum entanglement. Though all of that... what we can infer with high confidence is, AI is not that. Haha. So again ...if there's another way to achieve higher order consciousness in the cosmos than so be it. Fine. We have to be open to that possibility. But where AI/research is, its not creating a bubble that is inflated by emergence. As far as the 8 billion elimination argument... It's easier to eliminate 8 million than it is to eliminate 8 billion. A planet colliding with Earth would do the trick on the latter. Excluding the possibility that a Star Warsian planet killer ray is pointing its gun are way ... the like would be exceptionally rare to put it humorously. ... It follows that whatever catastrophe befalls is more likely going to be less than such extreme, sarcasm aside ... Which leaves at least a vestige.

That's going to go bye-bye over the weekend. Pretty good early cold in mid/N Ontario scooting into the Maritime of Canada, and the big polar high associated goes over-top our latitude Sunday. Coolest look we've seen since spring Thickness are below 560 much more convincingly for a couple days early next week. We'll bounce back, but at the continental scale this appears to be a kind of first step in seasonality, although it looks more pattern specific. Still, it is nearing the Equinox so some sort of 'step down' isn't outlandish. Doesn't mean we wont get a warm humid but the 570s ambience might be done until next spring.

AAM is an abbreviation for Atmospheric Angular Momentum try searing on the full text instead of AAM -

It's not an either or? We do not 'replace' the perils of Climate Change with an overarching risk of AI evolving without restraint - these two are in tandem, mutually exclusive aspects. Heh, if we want to be quantitatively on point it is more sufficed to say the combination of that tandem just increases the odds of calamity. There's this idea of the "Doomsday Clock". The idea is 'how close' is humanity to inducing global catastrophe, originated out of 'The Bulletin of Atomic Physicists'. It's not replacing in their assessment, either. The threat catastrophe can be a cocktail of causalities. Climate Change and AI are among them. So it may have just been clumsy word choice there but you'd be surprised how many people will actually drop one in lieu of the other and base their energy there as the proper response to scaling urgency. When the truth is ... we could be fucked for both reasons independently. The other thing... I'm speaking in terms of perils and risks... 'Extinction'? Mm, that's a bit heavy - again, it may just be word choice in the moment; I assume you know that extinction is absolute. I would lean more so on population correction. Whether we choose to be in control of that reduction or not it is likely to occur. And not just among our species, but global biology - this latter aspect is already underway. We could philosophically argue that it is beginning in humanity, with the crashing birthing rates among developed worlds. The crime in it all is that the other species we share this world with never had a say in the matter. Snarky digression: Ancient scriptures seem to lean like humanity has some intrinsic rights over this world bestowed upon them that places them as having both import and entitlement above all others. That smacks like a means to explain away that iniquity. Meanwhile, the logic cracks with the god idea when objectively, such an infinitely powerful - all good - agency cannot simultaneously exist, while also allowing the crime iniquity to happen ... That means they, or it, are or is, either not infinitely powerful, or, not infinity good. Pick. Which then means, they or it cannot be a "god". Heh...I just walk away from the dogma. Yes, an all-out extinction is a non-zero probability; however, it is still a low probability. Firstly, it would be hard to completely extinguish 8.5 billion - that number is so large as to increase the probability that small enclaves and/or regions well-managed for resources would survive; perhaps circumstance exclusionary for geographic isolation disconnected from the Industrial reliance. An acceptance and perhaps of better definition, adaptive, probably persist in a worse case scenario. As an aside, the semantics is bothersome with me regarding AI. All walks and dimensions of society, from social media to television, movies and literature, to the chit chat before board meetings get under way, to the water coolers, the bus stops outside the office and back, everyone everywhere keeps referring to AI as being a threat. AI is not a threat. The human beings that are engineering it are the threat. There's something of an oddity when AI execs extol "warnings” of singularity this, and self-determination conscious emergence that, in the creation of these systems ( which I personally believe they are full of shit on the consciousness aspect - extremely complex discussion content that even ponders the spiritual ), yet it is they that are responsible for that same creation. "If that's true then stop doing it, assholes!" Yet they do not desist. Struggling with that frustration of claiming a destination of doom, yet persisting ( ), the diabolical answer, could it be a campaign to divert attention away from the fact? By distracting an easy Idiocracy with the dystopian specter of it all, said target's too nonplussed to reproach. OR, here's an Occam-ian simplified reason: they are full of shit. In this rendition ...they don't really believe in the "Skynet" outcome, but are propagandizing its power. That would give the allusion of who owns the reign, to position themselves capitalistically. Yeah, philosophically ... money ended the world. I don't know, but there's a fairly obvious suspicious odor to the whole, "Look out! what I AM doing will kill you all" warning. While I also don't downplay the usefulness of the technology. It is a powerful tool. Proven so. I've personally worked with "Claude" and found it to be a synergistic experience as it assists in creative problem solving...etc. This also echoes what's emanating from the ambit of Mathematics and advancing Physical circles, et al.. So it is real. But at the end of the day, if AI does become that threat, then the people that currently advertise its omnipotent plausible agency as being unconstrained by the inconvenience of morality, yet won't stop working to evolving it? that state doesn't require a VIN diagram to explain their dark culpability. But having written a SciFi novel, "Dominion", which required a ton of neurophysiological research among also quantum mechanics ... ( which is (interesting) the premise of the novel parallels Roger Penrose et al, completely independent of that formal physical approach) I strongly believe there's no way that the inner products of linear algebraic solutions sifted through a probability matrix will engender a free floating motivation --> will. It's a neat trick, perhaps elegantly in the overdue arrival of simulacra. But all it really achieves beyond that is finally ... we've used the mathematics we were forced to learn.

Joke ( or not ) aside ... something like 'weather modification' may be down the road of Quantum Computing. If and when the QC cores start actually understanding all the quantum states of a system simultaneously - largely purported to be how they 'quantum compute' - it doesn't intuitively seem like sending spin instructions/communicating to the matrix ( so to speak ) is a very big leap beyond that. We had a course work in 'chaos' in nature vs weather modeling in FAST II back in the headier university days up at UML. ...Jesus the dinosaurs were big back then... The principle idea was that weather modeling would one day hit a limit ... the speculation back then in the 1990s was that it would probably be between 5 and 7... beyond that, the permutation horizon was not readable, because it was based up emergence' that were yet to occur. That may still be true, yet ... won't matter. Because we don't have to know the future any longer. Philosophically, there's no need for the preparation if were programming the winds. In other words, conventional model become a thing of the past. What a weird state that would be. For those that are born in such an era, not so much. But if one remembers a time when "pita-flops" were required to multi-modal processing of navier-stokes at grid points... and the trillions in tech and satellite that went into it all ... paper weights.

It's a torch in the other deep layer synoptic metrics ... just not at the surface. It's unusual to have 590 dm non-hydrostats and keep it less than 80 in an offshore flow. I've actually seem this sort of oddity with increasing frequency in recent years. Not sure if it's a Gretta or not but ... it's when non-hydrostats and even the hydrostatic heights (thickness) are elevated enough for very warm (relative to season...) yet the surface is some significantly blunted below the potential. The lower troposphere is oddly lagging behind the mid/upper air sounding. interesting