Scarlet Pimpernel

So, not quite Groucho level but getting close???

In reality, I think we reach some kind of consensus in one way or another, there won't be some "cave" to either the extreme GFS result or getting nada or snow TV white rain. The trends this afternoon should certainly lend more confidence to a warning-level snow event I would think, whether the inverted trough is mostly responsible or more coastal action, or some combination. There is no way in hell we get the GFS amounts of course, but taking all guidance into account (including the latest AI models), you'd have to say an overall 4-6" or so event is now very much on the table. Obviously that could change a lot either way with later runs, but I like the semi-convergence to SOMETHING decent.

It ain't over or decided yet of course (but I know you know that!)...however, I have to feel a bit more confident in a solid warning-level snowfall at this point. Obviously the crazy GFS amounts are just that...crazy...but I like seeing the Euro edge in that direction (as well as the Euro/GFS AI versions). Now, can we get the Hessian and Canuck models to concur, LOL!!!

This, absolutely! I of course do not buy the crazy intense GFS solutions with record-breaking snows (though fun to look at from the perspective of just what COULD happen in the most ideal, extreme case!). But I am encouraged that we could still quite possibly see a decent warning-level snow. I think that would be quite a win.

I guess one of the most important things, ignoring the ridiculous coastal the GFS has been showing, is how is the Euro handling the IVT on this run? Is that improved at least?

Yeah, thermals look like crap like they did at 12Z.

Yeah maybe it wasn't quite a dual low at 12Z. I was just recalling as I looped through the surface depiction that it "jumped" suddenly to the northwest between hour 78 and 84. And there seemed to be a sort of extension to the northwest at 78 when the low was centered east of Hatteras, then an extension to the east when it jumped toward the Delmarva area. Maybe that was just simply how TT decided to place their "L" though and not a real jump.

Haha, I was going to say, isn't there some general "rule" (weenie rule) that the GFS supposedly handles NS energy better? But in all seriousness, obviously these last two ridiculous solutions are simply not going to occur (we wish, but let's be realistic here!). It's out on its own in terms of that extreme. However, I wonder if we can hedge toward thinking that maybe a less than perfectly ideal interplay between the two SWs can STILL get us a pretty damned decent event. Going back to those images you showed before with the IVT setup, it seems that while some model runs shifted it east, it was also fairly wide? Wonder if that could also be a good thing.

Has that same "dual low" position as 12Z. In the 12Z run, it kind of jumped to the closer one along the coast. Where does it go this time? Also, not sure if other models had that dual structure, and not totally sure what's causing it other than something with the phasing.

This is all we can hope for. As was mentioned earlier, there are a lot of vorts flying around in there which complicates the setup. It's pretty obvious what we ideally want is for something to phase and create a deep/intense enough low that can tuck toward the coast more and also draw in some colder air. The 18Z GFS and 12Z CMC showed how that can occur. We don't want some broad, dull trough that scoots a weak wave out to sea.

I'll say for myself that yes, I have gone back and forth debating with myself on this kind of thing. In my case, it's photography gear (photography is a major hobby of mine!). I tend to look into upgrades for newer camera body versions every now and then, and scrutinize details, seeing if it's really worth it and if I'd need it for my purposes, etc. In general, it's not excessive in terms of cost...an investment for sure, but nothing like having to get a loan out, LOL!! Plus, I would factor in how much I could sell my current equipment for to partially defray some of the cost. In general, it is clearly worth it and overall not too bad in terms of cost. Especially since when I get something like that, it gets a LOT of good use. It's a bit difficult, being a bit of a technophile, when I see all these neat new features, and I have to really think hard how much I truly need it for what I do. But when I've taken the plunge, it's definitely worth it and I've saved up some for that. So I'd say that if the cost is not excessive and not overly "painful" in your case, and it's something you most definitely would get a lot of use from and make your work easier...go for it! And if you can somehow sell your current setup, even for just a relatively small amount, that can help too. Especially if your family is saying sure, go on ahead and do that for yourself if the equipment will enhance your artwork. For instance, a couple of years ago I upgraded my camera body to a Canon R5. It's not cheap, but not their highest end either. My camera at the time was fine. But the R5 had a fair bit more that I seriously would use, so I went for it and haven't regretted that. The damned thing is a workhorse and takes amazing shots, and I can probably keep it for a couple of years more barring something like it having serious issues or damaging it somehow. And I sold/traded in my previous camera which actually cut the net cost nearly in half which helped.