psuhoffman

Now before people freak out I just wanted to post a period with a somewhat similar pattern look. The WAR, full latitude trough from Siberia into the eastern US with a severely stretched PV, and EPO poleward ridge being the 3 significant similar longwave features to what all 3 global ensembles are showing coming up. There were a lot of boundary waves during this period before the big March storm. They mostly affected just NW of 95 with a lot of mixed events along 95...but patterns are similar not identical. You could easily adjust some of those storms south 50 miles and suddenly it was a very snowy period in DC as well as Hagerstown! Secondly, about the elephant in the room...March 93...I mentioned this in the zoom chat last night...this is the kind of look, full latitude eastern trough with a full latitude western ridge that COULD lead to that kind of thing. The key would be to get enough of the energy from a wave to dig and amplify in the base of the trough. But what is way more likely is a lot of weaker waves. We get this kind of setup occasionally but only VERY VERY VERY rarely does it produce the big bomb scenario. So just because this is the kind of setup that COULD lead to that...doesn't mean its likely. Just possibly. Slightly possible. The idea of boundary waves similar to what we saw during that period in 1993 (and 2014 just a little further south that year) is valid though. That was my main point was just to show some past similar periods to what guidance is spitting out now.

just a thought... we had that weird fairly short one week period in early December 2013 but other then that didnt the "winter" really set in right about now in 2014 also? The current pattern has a lot of similarities to that year. We all know we also got really lucky that year on top of the pattern so I am NOT saying to expect that kind of outcome...just saying seeing similar type waves showing up right now maybe shouldnt be shocking with the pattern similarities.

This next system has a lot more room to lift north up the coast. It's ahead of the trough axis instead of behind it. This last system was cut off and had just enough space to amplify but it was never going to be able to gain latitude given the NS configuration. This next system, if it has enough amplitude, will lift north. The risk to missing it IMO would be if the system is simply too weak to amplify a storm in time. If the southern wave isnt strong enough to initiate a heathy storm in time it could get squashed out. I don't favor that scenario at this time...but that would be the risk. If the southern wave is anything close to as amplified...even half...as this last system it will be a healthy storm that will affect places further north than this last one did.

Euro is 994mb about 75 miles east of OC at 96 hrs.

I think he was referring to the Bill Belichick press conference from years ago

I wasn't trying to be critical of your post, just adding my own thoughts too it. In the future people would do well to realize the GFS wasn't completely on an island. Other guidance did see the setup in previous runs and had just lost the look temporarily. Additionally the GFS was only about 12 hours ahead of the curve with the other models and they were trending along with it just a cycle or two behind the curve. If any one model is totally and completely on an island with no support at all its wrong the vast majority of the time.

Something to remember, all the models have flaws and use different equations to compensate and do their best to make up for our inherent limitations. We have not advanced to the point where we can model the atmosphere with 100% accuracy. We compensate for that using different methods in the different models to limit the errors. That means that each model will be wrong to some degree at range, and one part of the skill is picking out how they are likely wrong. The other thing is each synoptic setup is different with different variables being most important in influencing a storms outcome and so one model could have an advantage over another based on its specific physics. That model might not always be the one that is the "best" on average in the long run. In this last setup the key issues the models were getting wrong, even the GFS just to a lesser degree, was the interaction and spacing between the lead NS wave and the trailing wave on the front. For a while guidance had the timing off and the NS wave right on top of the southern wave which essentially flattened and washed it out. At range the models all took turns seeing the setup but they all lost it in the medium range. They had the timing between the two wrong. Something about the GFS allowed it to catch on a little sooner than the other globals in seeing the separation that would allow the southern wave to amplify. The GFS isnt a clown model. Its not as good as the euro in the long run but its one of the 3 best global models and worth taking into consideration in every situation. But every situation will be different and we have to try to judge which model is handling it better. In that regard I actually felt more comfortable making general long range forecasts 15 years ago than I do now. When the models had a much lower resolution and before we started updating them every couple years...they had more consistent biases and erros IMO. I was able to look at them and identify more often what they were each doing wrong based on their known error biases. Now, with the increased resolution and rapid updates these errors seem less consistent to me. It's a lot harder IMO to know exactly how to adjust for the model errors. Yes they are better in that they are each more likely to be closer to reality on any given run...but in a way the ability to adjust for their errors, and they will still have them, is lower for me at least. That said...looking ahead to this next system, I think the GFS is playing into one of its still prominent known errors of too much cold and suppressing the wave a little too much. Looking at the upper level flow that wave should be pulling northward with the energy coming through the ohio valley and tracking to our NW...not getting squashed off to the SE. The Euro/GGEM looks closer to what the pattern supports IMO. But like I said before...its a lot harder imo to make that statement with any confidence since the models are more jumpy having different errors with each situation lately.

I think feelings are feelings. What makes someone happy/sad is just part of our subconscious based on things that happened during our development and our personality. We all have our weird pleasures and pet peeves. I don’t necessarily blame him for the fact he is unhappy about the result. I’m not happy I missed the snow today (although I am genuinely happy for the people who did get snow). But my reaction is to find other things to do and definitely not to take a dump on everyone trying to enjoy their snow. Imo he needs to find more productive ways to deal with it.

Why are you stuck up on 5”???? You’ve had numerous 4” storms during this period but you’ve complained during every one that it wasn’t 5”. Why? Is 4 v 5” that big a difference to you? Is it the warning thing? That’s subjective. It used to be 4”. Then they arbitrarily made it 5”. What is it about 5” for you?

Winters over in 2 1/2 months…

#2 is Jan 2000 with 14.9” #3 is Feb 2006 with 13.1”

replying is giving him exactly what he wants...plus people can set to ignore him but then we still have to see all the replies to him. Just ignore him.

can we please just ignore him

We have got to get you back into the area!

I will be a few mins late, getting my son to sleep now

I might be about 5 mins late...getting my son to bed.

This one is really going to hurt...but I am happy for places that have not had much snow at all in years!

Hell Ya you take your victory lap when you get a win

well yea and that is what the probabilities tell you without having to waste your time looking at the members or the individual outputs or the mean that is skewed by the crazy ridiculously high members.

I really hope they go all in and make the FV3 based short range ensemble package a worthwhile tool because the idea is really good they just totally failed in the execution with the SREF and the HRRR.

The NAM can sometimes score a coup. I can remember a few times it was the ONLY model showing something and that happened. The problem is it's so inconsistent and unreliable and goes off on tangents with feedback issues and problems with chasing exponential errors...that you have no idea when its on to something or just being the NAM. On the whole it probably just adds more confusion and stress even if once in a while its right.

Was looking at that in the chat earlier...it really is classic looking. If the NS could just back off a tad this would be a region wide winner... One thing I wonder...usually when we see these sharp cutoffs that kill our northern zones the airmass is much colder. I don't remember many instances where we get this kind of cutoff when it's still in the 40's up here even up here just a few hours before the storm. I know the mid level flow has a lot to do with it and not just the airmass but I do tend to think (maybe hope) that maybe the moisture can press a little further given the marginal airmass. I agree with you but this region is bloodsport with snow and you just have to be tough and ignore the rude BS, or dish it back at them!

BTW... the SREF's are mostly useless due to the crazy output of some of the members...but if I was going to use anything at all from them it would be the probabilities.

Someone broke WB, too many people trying to view it...but the probabilities updated and it was a huge increase in the probability of 3" and 6" across Maryland. Gets the 50% probability of 6" up into southern PA now when it was down near Baltimore last run. From the probabilities you can tell it shifted NW quite a bit. But the actual panels didnt update yet when I looked.

I'll open the chat again at 9:30. Same link