psuhoffman

There is extremism on both sides. On the one hand there was a 48 hour period of a steady amplification trend through yesterday’s 18z. And I do think it was fair to see the possibility that had that continued a legit 4-8 maybe 10” thump was possible. Some red tags were even pulling out the weenie vocabulary with fgen and instability banding. I think it’s fair to both point out that guidance is backing away from that scenario and be a little disappointed by that. On the other hand it’s still going to snow and just because it’s not 8” doesn’t mean people can’t enjoy a 2-4” event if that’s what it becomes. But some seem to get upset when i simply make an observation that guidance trended less amplified and on the other side some take that to the extreme and cancel the whole event.

Agreed

They will be at this range but there are, by my count, about 4 waves riding the Arctic boundary over the next 2 weeks. I wouldn’t invest too much in any one solution but odds we get a good hit from one of these waves (and maybe more) are high.

Now that we finally got cold into N America and there is no sign the blocking we’ve had all season will break, it keeps recycling every wave break, we might have a pretty extended favorable window.

I’m not predicting. I said I expected this to continue to amp up. But fact is on most guidance it’s going the wrong way right now. I did see the SREF run and that followed by the NAM was a good start to 12z. Since then it’s been a huge letdown. Everything else has gone the wrong way. We joke about hug the model with the most snow but how often does that work? It’s usually preponderance of evidence that wins. Maybe this is the time the snowy one wins. It happens. I have expected to see a continued amp trend and am kind of shocked this reversed course. Maybe it juices up at 18z or 0z. That’s very possible. I’m simply making observations and there are more not good ones then I like to see right now. Let me finish by saying we’re probably still safe for some snow but I’m worried the solutions yesterday we were giddy over with talk of crazy fgen and 2”hr rates and someone getting 10” is slipping away and that’s what I’m in this for. I don’t really invest in 1-3” events.

HRDRPS trended weaker SE

The NAMs sometimes set the narrative too much since they come out first. But the fact is 18z yesterday was the high water mark wry amplitude across guidance. Since then taken in totality there has been a trend weaker with the system. The NAMs are the only guidance I’ve seen 12z yet that bucked that trend. Everything I just said is simply observation of guidance. No prediction. I’ve expected a continued trend towards a more amplified system but the truth is that halted 18z and since gone the wrong way.

It’s going to snow. The problem is how much. And that’s tricky because of very marginal temps. If this was cold smoke a general 4-8” with local 10” call would be pretty safe. But the problem here is with very borderline barely cold enough to accumulate temps rates are important. Normally the difference between getting .4 qpf and .7 would be 4” or 7” which would both ball in a 4-8” range. But there is a huge difference here where .7 over 6 hours could be a 6” thump that overcomes temps while .4 over that same 6 hours doesn’t cool the boundary layer as much so it’s 34 instead of 33 and with lighter rates it’s 1-2” of slush on non paved surfaces! Now the forecast busted.

Not the 12z ARW. It is VERY dry. NMB is actually wetter ironically previous run for comparison

Your location has kinda been the snow anus of the region lately. And because of that (understandably imo) you’ve been a bit of a deb. Because of that though some probably just assume you are debbing even when your point is legit.

Other then the NAMs, the early hints across other 12z guidance (hrrr, ARW, NNB, HRW, Icon, RGEM) is a continuation of the trend towards less amplified and thus less qpf. That’s bad for everyone. With marginal temps the extreme rates are necessary to get good accumulations. This is a setup where there is an exponential effect. It’s not like .8 qpf = 8” and .5= 5”. This is a setup where .8 could be 7” and .5 could be 1- 2”. 6 hours of moderate snow won’t work here. We need that OMG face banding on the coastal plain.

HREF looks nice Imo

Not “worried” but there has been a definite slight shift southeast on guidance so far tonight. That’s not what the northwest crew from Winchester to Mappy wanted to see. But it was minor and could be noise. 6z could easily resume the NW trend we saw the last 48 hours.

I think we will find out at 12z if this will do the typical jump NW at the last minute or if 0z was a warning for our area. I tend to think this adjusts north some tomorrow but the one inhibiting factor is it’s trucking so fast. If it is late amping up by just a couple hours it’s a problem when the whole system is flying by in 6 hours.

Well the NSSL is the best for me so I’m hugging it lol

The track adjusted west but qpf was lower across guidance so far 0z. Partially due to the storm moving even faster. In and out too fast.

Icon FULL TUCK lol

What do you know about the HRW? I’m not familiar with it.

Perfect placement for the max stripe on the ARW

Rgem kinda blah for places NW of 95. Similar to last run.

Full tuck!!!

It is less amplified...but it is also slower so it is hard to compare since the wave is amplifying more later across guidance.

Still less amplified through 28

NAM coming in less amplified so far in the plains at 17 hours

Casual