Typhoon Tip

I was just going to say… Extrapolating radar doesn't snow north of New York City. But like Will and I were talking about earlier's radar and satellite and stuff can be deceiving. We'll see

mm... k, buuut... there's some large more super-synoptic scaled arguments I've had all along in mind, that sort of keep/kept me from being too bullish. I could see it going either way - still within margins of error to go only 50 % of consensus totals, and due to the endemic uncertainty with an inherent "needle threader" system and exact course and banding, having weird strike back gashing from HFD- to BED I could see that too... Barring the lesser likely, though, this "should be" a narrow impactor, hauling ass like bats leavin' hell. Translation timing alone playing a limiting factor as well... Compressed, high velocity patterns limit impacts to narrow regions... doing so with middling over all mechanical strength has left me scratching heads to find where 6-8 " come from but again,.. margin for error is bit higher. The MESOs could erroneous for convective handling... yup, but ... maybe they should've been to high in the first place.

Filter turned off again ...? j/k.... good luck with your forecast

Speak of the devil... James just saved the day! ahah

Careful I've done that before, too ... go to bed feelin' really good about Sat and Rad trends, regardless of whatever disappointment was being evaded on my way to slumber... only to wake up wonder how in the hell said Sat and Rad didn't parlay better... Sometimes those loops sorta kinda like lie? you know -

'Been just sort of observing ... ( lost interest due to my perennial checking out that typically happens in March ...don't take it personally. ) It seems there is/has been a tendency to collectively lean toward higher amounts reviewing many pages in this thread. Then the subtle surprise when x-y-z run cuts back and, then a-b-c model suggests more and we forget the x-y-z... I just wanna add, I don't typically see big amounts from fast moving open waves... particularly when the wave its self has almost vague mechanical signature in the flow. I think some of this nearer term run-up attenuation of the development profile (talking Satur...), may be realism and correction pushing back against the above 'leaning'. On the other hand, just about any permutation in the Earth's atmosphere since about 50 years ago ...is going to have more moisture at its disposal ... so, comparatively weaker kinematics can ...I dunno, add a couple tenths or so... That's just fact - water output from island showers near Fiji, to enormous tempests in the GOA, to categorical hurricanes in the Atlantic... to thunderstorms in WeatherWiz's backyard... everywhere, the atmosphere is empirically holding more moisture and rate results are up. Not sure how much that facet should deterministically add to this thing, but, it's just to say that the same synoptic evolution in 1919 doesn't produce (probably) as prolifically as it does in 2019.. Worth a consideration... if only for a little more. The other aspect I'm toying around with is the "little critter" phenomenon - which is a euphemism (don't panic ) for when a seemingly innocuous perturbation in the flow goes flippin' nuts, which happens regardless of 1919 or 2019, too... I don't know this qualifies, ...I don't think it will ... but, most of those positive bust types take reanalysis to figure out why. You know, I saw Bozart's presentation back in 1997 when he first coind the expression to describe those head scratch six hour long S+er's out of nowhere... as I also recall the system he was using for his presentation. It was fascinating... 10" on a west wind along the pike and SE Mass is the ultimately left-fielder... Pretty sure it was Feb the previous year. Anyway, different story different time no analog.

If there's any usefulness ... https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

Not entirely sure... CPC provides a lot of on-line 101 level essay and explanation text for their various Q&A and methods ...etc... They sort of tip their hat to 'not really normalizing for the hockey-sticking' (so to speak), however: What is the relationship between El Ni�o/La Ni�a and global warming? The jury is still out on this. Are we likely to see more El Ni�o's because of global warming? Will they be more intense? These are questions facing the science community today. Research will help us separate the natural climate variability from any trends due to man's activities. If we cannot sort out what the natural variability does, then we cannot identify the "fingerprint" of global warming. We also need to look at the link between decadal changes in natural variability and global warming. At this time we cannot preclude the possibility of links but it is too early to say there is a definite link. c/o: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensofaq.shtml#RELATIONSHIP Their exact data ranges may be buried in those links somewhere .. but, climate intervals are broken into different multi-decadal lengths for different uses. Edit, might be useful to note that even since 1980...the lion's share of mass occurred in the latter half of that nearly 40 year span

It's fascinating ... Perhaps time will expose that it's like a heat 'catch basin' that occurs during otherwise neutral times. It's an illusion of an El Nino event in that sense [if so] because it's only warmer than normal against 1950 but not necessarily in a neutral ENSO in 2020 ... hmm The other thing, NASA ...NOAA... tea leafs in china... whatever, they may already "normalize" the anomaly for the hockey-sticking... (I'm calling it hockey-stickinig, just means rapid rise at the end of the multi-decadal curve). That would make the "actual" Earth-relative anomaly (as in present tenths) more accurate. But, the atmospheric component of that is a quagmire -

well...yeah ...in your defense, I wasn't even considering the recent spatial science/delineation of ENSO anomalies - as in, 'where' the warmth is located out there. But it shouldn't matter - if there is a muting effect that is secondary to El Nino's presence ...because the El Nino is concurrent against a warm backdrop ...yadda yadda... It still would be influenced the same way. The problem here is that in a 'climate flux' ... you don't have Modoki this... and Nino 1+2 that actually IN that same historical framework... why? because it hasn't happened yet.

Well not in absolute terms like "...are not" ... I just want to consider the possibility of the latter ... to open some worth-while speculation and conjecture. I don't believe I've made any 'declarations' per se - if I did I miss spoke. Hot vs cold ...undulations occur...system finds a neutralized outcome. Hot vs Hot ... no undulations occur ...because system has no physical reason to neutralize. I just strongly believe it is worth sciencing whether warm ENSO events in a GW spike might try to approach the the hot vs hot model ...not necessarily be there. Throwing in the AO mucks it up further.

Ah...personally? I wouldn't be so confident in picking the effect of ENSO apart that way... Whether the effect of Nina(Nina) may or may not be physically manifesting at a given location/season, only belies it's presence ... or supports it, either way. But when it doesn't, it doesn't mean it's not there. It "sounds" like you're suggesting that? If so, ..no, it's effects are still ubiquitous. ..on going.. if only [more likely] being masked by whatever those other forces are hiding. 'Stateside' this and Philippines that ...I'd be careful with that. That very real and applicable concept is related to the AO part of this too. There are times when the N. Hemispheric pancake events and emergent blocking episodes will subsume the ENSO signal (though probably less than entirely...) and whether it does so and how much probably depends on the relative strength of either in time.. blah blah. Also, and hypothetically: El Nino is more than merely statistically shown to be a global phenomenon ... but, the majority of that history was in a relative quiescent/stable climate ... compared to the "hockey-sticking" we are observing world-over now. The point was/is ... that statistical inference/correlations may be a bit tricky. That's all... It has to be... A warming world doesn't supply the gradient distribution the same way - gradient is the whole machinery, period.

Mm... it was vetted/researched why the recent 'mega' nino did less comparative global impacts - Winters since have also been odd relative to enso - 2015 ...etc

yeah i routinely get that backward ...wrt to the direction there. but i'm not sure i know what you mean by 'warm ensos behaving in similar manner' ... ?

not to be contrarian buuut... I thought climo on warm ENSOs was for early cold/snow turn outs fading toward early springs... But, I don't know where Feb lands in that plan (exactly) ...it's a fence month. Seasons lag...it's the only reason why Novie's aren't on whole snowier than they are, and why Febbies aren't bloomin. the latter is getting more solar than the former. anyway, ...the warm ENSO isn't it kind of paltry? . .. i also have a separate hypothesis related to it's scale/degree of anomaly being less meaningful in a GW where/when the surrounding medium is also warm(ing)... that skews the total thermal source/sink relationship and quite intuitively, a warm(cool) ENSO event in a warm(cool) earth should reflect differently... plus... again, i don't think enough homage is necessarily applied to the AO - not Ray's outlook per se...just in the general ambit of the efforts for seasonal 'casting.

Not sure if this has been discussed so excuse any redundancy - I've accepted the notion smoldering underneath all this monitoring that the perennial ice is on a course toward extinction ... whether that reality is observed next year or decades away, notwithstanding. What I'm interested in is the "rate" of recovery over the seasonal transition. Those modalities are perhaps more telling about the drivers and forces effecting a system than the scalar statuses. Many of these more impressive cold wave winters (that may or may not have had concomitant snow storm efficiency) were led off by fantastic recovery rates with sea ice expansion, as well, with land-based cryospheric metrics, during the preceding autumns. I think it is also less systemically observable over antiquity because passed decades did not have as much exposed naked sea-surface, having ice more enduring during warm months ...such that said rates more likely merely went unnoticed. So, it's supposition...but, I suggest a rapidity in areal ice recovery ... along with land-based numbers, can be telling signs for an ensuing winter's arctic contribution to modulating middle latitudes around the Hemisphere - notice I said 'Hemisphere' and not 'local-yoke's backyard'...

Fwiw - https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/23/world/arctic-sea-ice-breakup-greenland-trnd-wxc/index.html

It's interesting as we track a mid latitude heat event (plausibility) over the eastern 1/2 to 1/3 of North America, which we similarly did back near the end of June when that took place up near Siberia - Probably a basic R-wave argument in place there -

Perhaps .. I'm not sure I agree with the tone of the mathematician cited often throughout that University of Washington source, either - case in point: " "The good news is the indicators show that this slowdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation is ending, and so we shouldn't be alarmed that this current will collapse any time soon," Oh really - that seems a little preclusive if not a presumptuous leap based upon the reasoning supplied in the article, and only 14 years worth of empirical data... It is what it is... he she could be right.

Me neither ... considering that SSW events time-lag correlate to a reduction of the +AO phase state, which is opposite of what is occurring with a strong(ening)(ened) we see now... The other aspect, ... the termination of down-welling warm plumes that are theorized to cause increased static stability in the upper troposphere over the arctic --> breakdown of storm strength and collapse of the vortex (whereby/when blocking episodes ensue)... all that: the end phases of those events are either a logarithmic decay, or a strong analog for a that behavior, as they disappear in a very gradual extinction... Compounding that fade out ... it is unclear as we then relay winter hemispheres, if they effect summer circulation across the virtual boundary of seasonality. Summers typically feature no thermal flux of any kind between approximately April/May thru late October or so... Contrasting to the starkly increased tumult of thermal cool and warm events that pop off and decay at different time expanses and magnitudes during winter. So if any preceding mechanism is in place, not sure I see how sufficient that forcing would remain when there is virtually no signature/marker left in the data that suggests anything at all still exists.. Seems unlikely... but hell... maybe the system goes by a kind of first law of Newtonian dynamics ...where it's going to keep behaving per it's last forcing until acted upon by another force sufficiently strong enough to effect a new course... So as the a-hole careens through the intersection and causes a pile-up...he/she keeps on rollin blithely away and is no where to be seen as the carnage lingers on - heh. I like that

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-atlantic-circulation-collapsingbut-shifts-gears.html#nRlv

huh.. .interesting.. well, I've decided that I received 14.5" where I am... and let the surrounding village people have their way. I'm at 74" even on the season after yesterday's event, ~ 30 of which has taken place in these first two weeks of March - impressive either way.

I agree...that 24 hours is too long to wait, particularly if it snows for 6 hours and one intends to/has to wait 18 hours for that measurement. However, I suggest that when the snow stops, and it is systemically clear that it's really the end of the event, then the measurement is taken. However, during the event, I disagree (if perhaps this is a strawman argument) that 6-hour clear should be done, because as I was just describing, storm circumstancial melting/settling/or even sublimation - though that would rarefied, should be considered part of the event.

yeah... like, "...Prior to melting or settling.." ? that's absurd. Like, what about 'sublimation' then - You can't then measure snow ultimately, accurately at all, if it is 32.5 F and S+ because yeah, your accumulating, but you are simultaneously suffering an unknown negation ... Settling? Not much better, because it can snow 30" at 20 F and settle a lot more than 15" at 20, by shear weight... Bottom line, that statement really is horrible when considering the physicality of purpose/cause in the matter. Personally? I think that stuff matters, melting and stettling and sublimating... all of it... when the snow stops, you measure... If the snow pack lost to those on-going negations that's part of the snow event, and cannot - or should not - be uncounted.

its interesting to come in here and see this discussion, because I'm debating snow totals with my group of friends in an IM that don't really do weather stuff... anyway, I'm saying that I maxed here in Ayer at my place at 14.5" and it doesn't jive with the 18 to 21" being reported around me. Either: someone ended up in a weird nadir total; someone doesn't know how to measure snow depth; someone is lying... Not sure which of those, but I just measure the stack depth ... I didn't clear anything every 6 hours. I just have a perfect snow board region that is out of the wind and it lain with 14.5" new as of midnight when I crashed, and there was no evidence of accumulation when I awoke this morning. So, I am left with a quandary as to how much really fell: my 14.5" ..or, the average of 18 to 20" ... I really don't believe the latter, however. I suppose it is possible that there was a 4 to 6" gap that shielded just my street, if not my yard...from the rest of the town...but somehow I find that less likely too - heh