psuhoffman

I was just adding that in general.... there are many who are legit upset when the models can't nail down things at day 7 or 10. I guess the problem is that they run that far so people see it, and I kind of get the logical argument...why even have it if its useless. Back in the day most of the guidance only went to day 3 or 5. But on the other hand... pushing the limits is how we improve. And I don't find them useless as long as you understand you will see lots of permutations from each run at that range and you have to apply some experience and knowledge to parse out which permutations are more likely and know what is likely just a product of chaos.

They're infinitely better than they were when I started this hobby. But for some reason people's expectations have outpaced their improvements. In the 90's we would have killed for models to be as accurate as they are now to day 3 or even 5...but now we complain they aren't more accurate at day 7 or 10.

I finally had a chance to compare the guidance (euro/CMC/GFS) and the differences are minor for that range. It comes down to really insignificant (in a global sense) differences in timing, confluence, and amplitude of a scale that the models won't get right for a while yet. I don't see any compelling reason to say the euro is any more likely that the gfs or even a suppressed solution, of which there are still several options. But remember, even in a good setup, the odds from this range greatly favor a fail for the simple reason that (especially in this specific setup because of the time of year) we only have a very narrow range that is a win. We are talking about a box of about 50-100 miles at most...that we need the storm to end up tracking for us to get snow. The non snow solutions include EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD. So while I don't think the current evidence suggests any one solution is more likely than another... obviously if I had to take option A: the storm will end up inside this very narrow box" or option B, the storm will end up anywhere else on the whole planet, you would have to be really bad at math and geography to choose A.

It's not as bad as the mean looks... it's still far enough out in time that there are some timing differences, add in the outlier members that either have some super cutter from ejecting the wave whole (that won't work so we need not worry about it if that is what happens) or members that squash the wave totally...and it makes sense that we don't see a huge signal on a mean. This is actually a pretty minor feature on a global scale where a weaker wave (compared to those around it) in a deamplifying flow, attacks a leftover suppressed boundary. We kind of need a little ridging in front of it or it would likely be no storm at all given the fact its a deamplifying flow in the east at that time. The real issue IMO is how much energy ejects from the west...how quickly it moves, and how much cold is there to work with.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/04/less-stress-clearer-thoughts-with-mindfulness-meditation/

Haven’t even looked yet. It’s still too far out to be locked in every run. Even if it looks good we need a perfect track this late. Setup is there but if the wave ejects too amplified it will track to our west and that won’t work this late no matter how much confluence. If it ejects too weak it gets suppressed. I doubt guidance will nail down the final exact solution for a couple days yet.

Don’t spend it all in one place

It was still outside 100 when it started that move and it didn’t end up that far north. It tracked to southern oh but secondaried off NJ. Earlier runs had or track to KY then off MD. Biggest problem was they backed off on the cold push. The temps changed more than the track. Unfortunately we need so much to go right anymore to get snow that it can very much go wrong until the last minute with any one detail going wrong. But once inside 100 we don’t typically see huge wholesale changes like a suppressed system down off SC ending up a ticked into OC MD solution. Unfortunately going from a tucked off OC to rain only really necessitates about a 50 Mile NW adjustment. Our path to win has way less margin. Kinda like when the Commanders play the eagles. We saw it’s possible for them to win. But they have to play their best game possible and hope the eagles turn the ball over 4 times also. It’s hard.

Signal on ensembles less suppressed

This is fine. But it needs to make a move when it’s around 100-150 hrs. The track usually doesn’t adjust hundreds of miles on me inside that range. Change details yea. Huge shifts less so.

Ggem perfect track rainstorm lol

It had more confluence and a much weather SS wave. Could tell really early on it wasn’t going to work. But I’d rather it be showing this than an over amped wave at this range.

Gfs might be too suppressive this run

yes very, @CAPE pointed the SS dominant nature of this period also.

The reason for that distribution is because on the coastal plain accumulations this late will be limited...its just a reality...near sea level that close to the coast it just is...and you aren't going to get the usual higher ratio area of good snow outside the heavier bands to the NW of the low either because of the time of year...even in the higher elevations you still need rates this time of year... to see big totals we needed that low tucked just a little closer to the coast. During January that woulid have shown 6-12" over a large area...from banding on the coastal plain and from higher ratios to the NW. This time of year its death band or bust.

I warned my NYC friends that it was dangerous to get excited. The duel low on both those runs should have been a red flag.

It was a delicate setup. A phase along an inverted trough is always tricky for guidance but this was especially so due to the SS wave initially dampening out and escaping leading to multiple waves and convective centers along the trough. The full capture and phase predictably happens much later than some runs indicated. I’ve liked the general setup for weeks no reason to bail now. But we need so much to go perfectly. Imo the biggest risk to the whole thing breaking down would be if the ejecting pac wave once again over amplified too soon and a ridge goes up. It shouldn’t. No really it shouldn’t. Huge epo ridge along with a still -AO/NAO in its decaying stages and a trough just off the west coast SHOULD cause the wave to slide east and amplify in the southeast. But yet there are still quite a few members in the guidance that pump a SE ridge again. It’s absolutely amazing how quickly too. I’ve brought this up a few times. There is always southerly flow ahead of any wave. But lately unless there is EXTREME confluence behind some crazy 50/50 any south flow ahead of any wave immediately pumps a huge ridge. Even when we had cold a couple times way ahead of the next wave the boundary blasts 500 miles north in one day! That’s a huge problem. I know this wouldn’t work in March but think how much snow over the years we used to get from a wave that tracked to our NW from a front end thump. Good luck ever getting that when the second any wave hits the plains the thermal boundary jumps from VA to Quebec in 12 hours. Right now that’s not written in stone and the pattern says that shouldn’t happen but it would be a fitting end to this season if it went down that way.

So let what happened to NYC remind us next time….in any NS SS phase situation never go with the most amplified solution. Especially if it’s the UK/Euro/NAM. Yes overall the euro and uk are good models but those 3 have a bias to over amp systems and are often too fast to complete a phase because of this. If the Gfs/ggem/icon are allAll significantly slower it’s a huge red flag.

Day 8 clown maps in late March are not high on my list of concerns

Just got home. It’s snowing here. It was 50 in Vermont today. Lol.

Lol

There are 3 things that would make me go more conservative for NYC metro. First their climo in the metro isn’t that good in March either NYCs biggest Mar snow since the superstorm is 8” in 2018. Before 93 you have to go back to the 60s to get double digits! One 10”+ storm in 50 years kinda indicates it’s very hard to get a huge snow into the metro this late The others are specific to this setup. It’s an inverted trough setup which means there will be more of a SE flow to the NW of the secondary than typical of this was a fully developed with its own circulation. The full phase and development of a closed circulation doesn’t happen until too late for NYC. With a marginal airmass unless they do get bombed the flip to snow could be messy. Lastly the guidance bombing them are doing it eith a meso scale moisture convergence band along the inverted trough. The guidance can’t agree on if that’s real and if so where to put it. That’s like pinning down a line of thunderstorms. Given all that I’d be conservative for the NYC area. Now the higher elevations 25 miles NW of NYC, they could get bombed depending on how quickly it comes together.

I don’t fear a 50 degree day as you do.

I heard a rumor they had come up with this nifty invention called a jacket.

If you include the handful that have a perfect track rainstorm it’s a huge signal for a storm. We just have to hope it’s cold enough. It’s close on the rain members because they indicate some mix in the area, so likely they happen during day and it’s just a few degrees too warm. But a big miller a storm signal is there.