-
Posts
27,243 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by psuhoffman
-
I think maybe you’re confusing frustration with analysis. Rain is the more likely outcome in any given threat by default due to our location. That part is true. But using the op run of the absolute worst model to “analyze” this specific storm threat isn’t good analysis. Applying your fear that our typical climo issues will prevail isn’t analysis either. That’s true of every single threat. You could say that a week out every time. But sometime it does snow. Yes we fail 90% of the time but if you simply rely on climo you will miss the rare times we win. What you did was lazy because instead of looking at this specific situation and analyzing it independently you simply applied your frustrations based on our climo limitations to justify dismissing it without analyzing it.
-
I think that’s accurate. There are more ways to get some snow from a multiple wave solution but less chance of a huge storm. A more amplified wave introduces a MECS+ potential but a total fail if that one wave misses. I’ll take my chances with an amped up monster storm. Another 3-4” of snow won’t change my opinion of this winter at all. But a 10”+ storm definitely would.
-
The biggest issue I think the guidance has to resolve is how consolidated the pacific energy ends up. Guidance is split between multiple weaker wave solutions and two wave (lead weak wave followed by a more amplified follow up) solution. There are ways we could “win” in either permutation but until it’s known which we are dealing with the details can’t be known.
-
You don’t see the setup this clear on an ensemble this far out often. The crazy thing is the blocking is all that makes this work. Similar to Feb 2010, the pacific longwave pattern would normally scream huge SER but the displaced TPV and 50/50 there won’t allow it. The fight between the attempt to ridge in front of the approaching wave and the blocked in cold is what will create the threat. We’ve got snowstorms from this exact setup many times.
-
The thermal profile of the storm is fine...the track is just a slight bit inside what we want...adjust track of the secondary 50 miles SE and its a huge snowstorm 95 NW. I could waste my time digging into exactly why the track is slightly inside perfect but I am not going to because we are going to see way more error adjustment than 50 miles at this range...the whole thing is going to change...timing will adjust some, the thermals could get colder and then this track could work...the track could shift 100 miles either way...and those would be considered extremely minor errors and a huge win if thats all this adjusts from 200 hours out!
-
I held on to snow another couple hours up here but the snow started a couple hours later so it was a wash...the sleet was definitely dryer up here and less icy after the flip and I think that allowed the sleet to pile up a little bit more...it does seem like the snowcover is slightly thicker up here than in the Baltimore area for example...but honestly snowfall distribution was pretty uniform with this event until you got NW of Harrisburg where they stayed all snow and snowfall jumped up to 15" plus... but no one really got prolific snowfall totals because the best QPF occurred in the zone that ended up flipping to sleet which isn't too common but there was a really strong SW fetch at h8-h7 and it really blasted a warm layer much further north than typical when the boundary is that cold. Glass half full analysis: we managed to get an area wide 6-10" snow/ice storm despite a trough in the west and a system phasing way to our west Glass half empty: we only got 6-10" and flipped to sleet despite having one of the best arctic airmasses in place in a long long time
