Typhoon Tip

67 70 next door at KFIT with rounding

Heh... we can't look at it this way. We can't categorize and package these up as go or no, based on seasons. If there is blocking in the right place, it will be cold in July. Nothing more or less. People have ( likely ) made conjecture like this in the past, but honestly ...we have to take it case by case. There may be more blocking in winter then summer. Okay, but if the blocking is over eastern Canada... not sure summer protects us from cooler anomalies.

I haven't seen an actual spring cut off like we used to do in the mid 2000s probably since then. The last time was a cut-off on 'roids: May 2005. It wasn't "a" cut-off. It was an initial variant, that kept getting a new N stream parcel loading into the backside. The first in the series weakened and acted like it was going to beta-drift away, but then the reload grabbed it and it retrograded. This recurred a couple more times. So it was kind of like 4 consecutive ones with lull pauses between them. Staying cold. No sun. Each one was more loaded with "o'reah" than Montezuma's Revenge. Actually ... from a purely Meteorological dorkatudal-doo it was a pretty spectacular. There was IP and mangled aggregates mixed at times up in the Worcester Hills. There were three or four different accelerations of the NEesterly wind field during each re-invigoration of the coastal storm that would rotate back when said parcels reloaded. Winds gusted 45 mph. Sheets of 38 to 44F rain... The whole thing took like 2.5 to 3 weeks to finally kick out. Lesser, singular events with a cut-off in April were more common in the 1980s and '90s. Seems we've had a dearth of those in last decade?

You are logically flawed everywhere ...and then asking others to 'get real' with respect and regard to your reasoning. got it Firstly, there is no data manipulation. That is a petty interpretive bs thing you do where you think people have some ulterior motive or agenda. Wrong in this case... I set that to be 1951 to 2020. That is all I did. It is not used for any other purpose, as that post clearly has no other purpose, than to expand the to denser sample size. That's just good science. Secondly, there is no logical reason or necessity to combine ocean, when the atmosphere is hugely modulated by the ocean. If you wanna get into a sciency discussion about the ocean modulation physics, that's certainly a valid and worthwhile engagement. It does nothing to invalidate the state of the atmosphere. The product exists for reason. Thirdly, using words like "random" further exposes you rwill to criticize before consideration and higher reasoning. Fourthly, I wrote 2 fuckin' paragraphs with explanation in that missive... This is plebeian argument at this point... I'm out

Aside from the fact, the critique is misplaced. We in the Met and Climate community, who are not assholes and/or just fucking morons, already are aware that the oceans have absorbed 90+% of the warming that began actually since the Industrial Revolution. The oceans are intrinsic as a heat sink and modulator. Therefore, representing these warming(cooling ) graphics, respectively, already has that consideration embedded geo-physically.

They do. But the purpose of that was the atmosphere. You're extension of which does not invalidate it -

That would be nice tho... So far we are spits and starts of green up around this N. Middlezex Co region. Lawns have some patches. The forsythia and lilac buds are swollen. Some of the random shrubbery have green-ish tints to the still barren stems. All large species trees are in nuclear hibernation - not buying it... We need the nights to stop with this < 35 bullshit. Just give us 40 for fuck sake. You know? And make it stick. 40 to 52 with highs 60 to 70+ with this solar should finally tune up the lawn mowers.

hehhhhh I would encourage using larger hemispheric basis for determining back door potential in this case. I realize the modeling consensus - for now - is putting a Euro like solution as an outlier, but I really argue that a Euro like solution has a ton of support from both that larger synoptic perspective, but also in in the season trend. We've been dealing with a PV anomaly of varying strength.... averaging near 100 or 90 W by 60 N, for months. In all models, Euro combined, that still there out to 300+ hrs. That has been at times mirrored across the conterminous by warm heights S of ~40N. Larger gradient results. The flow between physically/necessarily faster than normal at mid and upper levels. Moving a stream of air faster than normal from Lake Superior -ish to the Maritime of Canada, is a very BD prone mean. That why we've seen a buck shot of BD's ... so it seems. I can't say this for sure, but it "seems" to me that we are above normal incidences therein, relative to date. I don't know if there is any climatology for numbers of BD, per date. So this is largely conjecture on my part. Be whatever that may be, I just base it on anecdotal accounting having suffered the vicissitudes of New England springs for that past 45 years of my life jesus. Anyway, being a bit flowering with rhetoric here but I think there's enough precedence both in spring climo, seasonal trend in play, and synoptic observable construct at large scales, not to be overly confident next week.

I did not use it incorrectly. Those are the straight up global anomalies, using an expanded data set because in scientific principle, denser sample sizes are better - when also stretched out over the longer term, exposes trends that have more confidence. UNLIKE what you are providing in your poorly thought out rebuke, using scanter sizes.

Dude, I put that same link in my post! people just glance over these posts... miss stuff. But definitely knee jerk react. I tell ya, social media engagement is a privilege that about 96% of the population may not be very well suited for

I haven't looked into it. I don't really do a lot reanalysis -related look ups. I've been posting the GIS sfc temperature anomaly product from NASA on or around the 10th for the past several months, just for the muse of the fact that we enjoyed what most perceive ...even if not objectively so, a cold snowy winter, yet that was the exception to the vaster rule. It's been an interesting observational journey.

Yeah, that was announced awhile ago, but it looks like a new solution is being offered. Unsure if that is the entire motive/reason for making the move, but they announced this a month or so ago "...Central Operations has announced that the Climate Data Assimilation System (CDAS) will be discontinued in favor of the Conventional Observation Reanalysis (CORe) ..."

Today may challenge the diurnal recovery record in the unofficial nerdy Asperger contest...

Welp ... I was wrong about March when it comes to predicting the product result, below. I had presumed recently that we'd result a more obvious local geographic ( 'local' relative to the entire world) cool zone/island anomaly relative to the whole "inferno" that is clearly and coherently, unarguably the product's character below... eh hm. Said island had been a persistent leitmotif since late last autumn... Still, you know, it really didn't sensibly come off that way? I recall seeing March colder locally comparing to the whole country on a lot of days... In fairness I think what is actually going on is that this product below is the "anomaly". What we experienced may have technically been a warm anomaly, just not as demonstrative or obviously so as everywhere else... SO, in that vein and sense it might still qualify. Also, having that impressively deep cold garland lording over top the Canadian Shield while there's a quasar spanning the conterminous U.S., definitely helps explain why we've been getting these wild 40 to as much as 50+ F air mass whiplashes, too. Anyway, here is the tabulation and mean for March provided by https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ Quote

Welp ... I was wrong about March when it comes to predicting the product result, below. I had presumed recently that we'd result a more obvious local geographic ( 'local' relative to the whole world) cool zone/island anomaly relative to the whole "inferno" that is clearly and coherently, unarguably the product's character below... eh hm. Said island had been a persistent leitmotif since late last autumn... Still, you know, it really didn't sensibly come off that way? I recall seeing March colder than the whole country - in fairness I think what is actually going on is that this product below is the "anomaly". What we experience was a warm anomaly, but just not as demonstrative or obviously so as everywhere else... SO, in that vein and sense it might still qualify. hmm 'Sides, I've been quite right about every other month since October...so, meh. That's a decent grade in anticipating these temperature layouts, nonetheless. Also, having that impressively deep cold garland lording over top the Canadian Shield while there's a veritable quasar spanning the conterminous U.S., definitely helps explain why we've been getting these wild 40 to as much as 50+ F air mass whiplashes, too. Anyway, here is the tabulation and mean for March provided by https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/