mattie g

Agreed. Let's think of the inverse. Is it possible that a borderline event becomes all snow today because the low bombed out just that bit more (mets would know better why this might happen) and the column crashed harder because of it? I just don't like discussions about a warming climate to be distilled down to very specific moments. It's like that one person who said that we could have "used a little bit of that good ol' global warming" during a cold stretch a few years ago. It's reductive in that it claims that one specific instance is proof of an overall larger issue, which I think does the science wrong. With that, I should probably back out of this discussion!

But you don't know that. Look...I'm not saying that the earth isn't warming. What I'm saying is that you can't pick out one specific snowfall and make a claim that it would be rain nowadays because the temps were borderline during that specific event.

It's been there for a while, but the problem is that we get relatively flooded with warmth from southerly flow ahead of the vort in the Midwest. What the GFS did all those days ago was to have confluence keep that vort from cutting, then eventually getting below us and giving us a double dip from the southern energy and that northern stream vort. With the confluence no longer coming into play, that vort cuts and floods us with warmth, then the precip from the southern energy falls into a warmer column. It's not until the front comes through that temps support the possibility of frozen.

Because you seem a good kid, I’ll indulge… The issue with that post is that the graph shows extreme temp drop events happening regularly over the last nearly 100 years. In fact, the modeled event is less “impressive” than each of those top 10. Attributing this event to climate change in any way misses the point entirely…and does climate change science a disservice, in my opinion. I may not disagree that climate change is simplifying/could amplify extreme events, but this event is not one of those.

Wait...why would this be the result of any sort of climate change? Arctic fronts bring in really cold air. Always have, always will...as the graphs in that tweet show.

That's because they don't have the resolution to see it.

Gotta admit that's pretty chilly. Too bad we won't have the snowpack that we were hoping for.

A crazy cold front with some snow on the back end would be pretty coo. I’m not going to pretend I’m not bummed out as hell about having days worth of GFS runs snowing on us and it ending like this, but I suppose it’ll just have to do.

Cool. You should probably delete your account.

Bring on the snownadoes!

Wait…there’s supposed to be upslope? Hadn’t heard.

When you have a 970mb Low plowing into western Lake Erie, there’s no chance we remain cold enough for a thump. I hear your points about changing climo and all that, but not every event that fails fails because of AGW.

That 12z GFS dropped a true Cleveland Steamer on us.

It was fun for a few days, but I guess the upper Ohio Valley is due for a Christmas blizzard. And no…I don’t want to hear about the big Cleveland blizzard from the 70s or whatever. Let me be kinda pissed off for a day or two first.

When you’ve been dealing with the same sh*t from the same people for years and years and years, sometimes you just gotta pull the trigger on Ignore.

Agreed

Then I guess that means the world has ended. I always thought of the Panic Room as a place to go when all hope is lost. If this were an end-of-February threat in a year that had sucked to that point, then yeah...Panic Room all the way. Maybe. I was just hoping to see a little bit of a move towards the GFS solution by the other models today.

I will admit that I'm getting a little antsy. Euro went all in on a cutter at 12z, which is worse than any of its runs in the last couple days, and the CMC is still cutting that thing to Hudson Bay. I want the GFS to be right, but I'm getting a little worried.

winterwxluvr hopes so.

Energy is more consolidated and the placement of the ridge out west sucks more at 12z. But what causes that?

I'm going with the "angle of ejection" of that energy in Canada will separate the Euro and Canadian. Edit: There's just no ridge out west at all.

I'm not big into playing off models or model "camps" on one another, but either the GFS is wrong as shit with that feature or the Euro/CMC/whatever else are.

We just want to be prepared for when it shows that we get drenched, followed by bone-chilling cold and frozen puddles.

Yup...Euro has that energy consolidated on the border of British Columbia and Alberta.