Typhoon Tip

Mm we may have difference source but these on this CDC site beginning late 1970s thru recency ... there's a clear bias for between Xmas and mid January. https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/

You know ...this reminds me ... I have noted recurring tendency during late autumns and early/mid winters of the last decade. It takes place spanning the N arc of the Pacific latitudes ... It appears the lower rim of the strata vortex in that area is being "bulged" skyward from below. Among other consequences...this has given faux impressions of SSWs. It's hard to blame anyone for assuming so when it is collocated in timing with SSW climo anyway. And so, this was perfect for social media moguls out there to pounce and sound brilliantly insightful for their adoring social media followers. But they were/are wrong. That's not what's taken place. This is evidenced by the fact that post those there were not very clear downward propagation of thermal masses noted ( tho admittedly looking quite similar to an SSW thermal intrusion). However the wave breaks were weak. The reversal were not sustained ... as it were, the situations mimicked ( "tricked" may be more apropos) many into the SSW circle jerk. And the AO's didn't go through the correlated negative phase..etc. Last year there was a weak SSW later in the year, but aspects noted above were also more evidenced - all taking place after the earlier season bulging thing. So what was it then? It's speculative ... but certainly plausible. What I believe what's been taking place is that the troposphere all over the planet is beginning to "swell" for lack of better word. And yes ... it may chap ass but too bad. Stop eating denial tacos and that'll go away ... it's CC that's doing it. For the newbs ... Warmth = increasing volume. That's nature 101. And it's also why there is any weather on the planet. If one doesn't get that or understand it...strongly recommend two recourses: Learn it, or, don't engage in this hobby. PV=NrT Pressure * Volume = #mol * gas constant for free mixed air * Temperature. Because mass is never lost or destroyed, "#mol" can be set to 1. The gas constant is also a persistent factor in all volumes/homogeneity so.. toss that. That leaves a rather simplified variant of PV= T in the ongoing "machinery" When CC is empirically measured in both the air, the ocean, and most importantly, the couple atmospheric ocean holistic system, that means that the other side of this equation, the P and/or V necessarily has to also rise. There are a lot of refereed and adjudicated material/papers out there related to "The troposphere is expanding due to anthropogenic climate change" ( https://bulletin.cmos.ca/the-troposphere-is-expanding-due-to-anthropogenic-climate-change/) just to mention one in a large compendium I suggest the N. Pac bulging tropopausal anomaly of the late autumns and early winters is perhaps a new seasonal behavior associated with the expanded troposphere, but to be mistaken as an Sudden Stratospheric Warm intrusion. As an after thought ...it's perhaps a geometric identity - creating usage. The SSW come into the sidewall of the stratospheric vortex cylinder. The bulging stuff is elevating from beneath, but since the measuring is fixed to the altitude, the warmth may be falsely associated.

The planetary wave dispersion (terminating warm advection as it washes out into higher latitudes...) I suspect is going to deliver positive flux over the grander time scale of the whole season. This positive anomaly/amount, because of the a super-position of the whopper +ENSO over top CC. ..sneaky hinted of that: the negative anomalies over the western Pacific oceanic basin are not creating a 0 when subtracting those anomalies from the positives associate with the El Nino. This means there is a surplus of thermodynamic sourcing in the Pacific/atmosphere holistic coupling. It's not hurting that the Atlantic "El Nino" is likely ongoing - currently the MDR is in 3rd historically... But all that is servicing blocking. Post cyclone deaths at 65 N/Ferrel latitudes ... positive heights nodes may materialize and decay, probably along shorter life spans than the "real" intraseasonal blocking events. Blocking can materialize from a different geophysical pathways. But as stronger cyclones curl into their death from mid --> higher latitudes, that warmth/latent transport gets dump into the mid and higher altitudes, and that flux - endemic to this year - may present a positive anomaly response into those regions. hat would transiently look like blocking but won't last long enough for the teleconnector correlation to realize. Probably a great year for NAO migraine modeling ...think 'popping off' while in wait of real wave# related variants. If the latter never takes place, I could see this as being faux applied for 'taking credit' for outlooks related to blocking. "right for the wrong reason". 'Sides, I may have this backward at the moment but isn't +AO correlated with the descending solar after a spring--> summer bombardment by active disk? Supposition/conjecture: It would be harder - also - to parse out how much is because of CC/ENSO superposition, vs how much is truly evolved out of the "winter time rendition of the inter -annual circumglobal teleconnector" - it's a summer correlation but I think that's bullshit. It applies, though modulated in why some years have more Asian blocking vs NE Pac vs Greenland ...etc, or not at all... And it has a strong correlation - I believe - with the AAM tendencies.

mm ...not intending to be involved in any back and forth. I'm not sure that's exactly impossible just hearing the immediate binary exchange there. Heh. Given the empirical setting of Earth ..., we have to objectively be open to a notion that extreme results may be preferentially warm. That almost seems passively comedic put that way... I mean, just because of the nature of having something like a "warmest ever ENSO" taking place over top a CC canvas. Perhaps trampoline is apropos. I was just mentioning to Chris over in the ENSO thread ..the synergistic product cannot really be ascertained. *However*, the probability for that sort of thing, and on which side of the mean that is more likely, can certainly be intuitive. You and I have set up some pathways to getting a snow this year. Those are still valid. I like the hangover N. Pac idea - although the recent PDO tells me the patttern biases may be changing - 'nother headache. Regardless, that's among the less likely outcomes. Given the leading and in situ circumstances the warmer one are weighted. Tough call - don't want to evacuate the probability either because patterns tend to "try" to slip or regress as a real observed phenomenon. You don't just escape and dust off hands. Doesn't work that way. So yeah... that's why I don't mind the pathway.. I could also see this year with something like a STJ that aligns farther N of canonical due to the fact that as has been papered by multiple sources...the westerly bands/jets have been moving N with the CC over recent decades. That immediately assumes a warmer southern tier.. and flooding and rains... with the band of winter shenanigans shifted

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