psuhoffman

I don’t like that progression. This is getting more complicated. I like simple. Throw some WAA at cold. Easy. We win in easy. The more we lose the cold in front and have to rely on complicated steps ugh... that said the gfs is still a pinball. Even the NAM which we would expect to be amped at 84 has way less ridging. Lets hope for less ridging and a colder trend in front and the “simple” option imo.

@frd just looked. After a relax the weeklies imply another surge of the NAO from Feb 10-15 which sets off a progression that would be very favorable from about Feb 16 through into mid March here. Huge if but that pattern would imply we get another crack at a snowy period later in winter.

That’s actually a pretty good look. Shades of 2014 and 2015. Those years achieved that through a different mechanism on the Atlantic side...a trapped tpv. That setup has pac ridge further west but a -NAO to offset. The result is a similar pattern over the conus. Wouldn’t be as cold but a good storm track in Feb and early March is ok so long as we’re not torching and we shouldn’t be in that look.

That’s a cutter look though. Way too much ridge in front. If we were to see a 50/50 in future looks it could morph into a transfer setup but the first wave as the trough progresses east (after reversal from current retrogression) is likely a cutter. After that we could get waves depending on how suppressed the SE ridge gets. Too far out to guess yet. Feb is murky but not a shutout look Imo.

We’re at the stage where I think the op is better given the lower resolution ensembles will struggle with the thermals and CAD. If we take anything from the EPS it’s the trend with MSLP and h5 heights not the snow mean. So like Wxusaf said the eps supported the slight south trend in the op despite what the clown maps say.

Live look at DCA

I think you end up south of that brick wall it’s fine but this won’t gain a lot of latitude on the coast imo.

Moving this from the “wrong” thread lol. Like I said last night this setup reminds me of PD1. Now that was a max anomalous outcome so that doesn’t mean we get that exact outcome. But I expect models are underestimating the intensity of lift along the inverted trough as it slams into the confluence from the block. If that setup holds there will be some pretty good banding stretched NW along the trough from the surface low. It will hit a brick wall though somewhere. My guess is Philly ends up ok but it’s close...any further north though...

Like I said last night this setup reminds me of PD1. Now that was a max anomalous outcome so that doesn’t mean we get that exact outcome. But I expect models are underestimating the intensity of lift along the inverted trough as it slams into the confluence from the block. If that setup holds there will be some pretty good banding stretched NW along the trough from the surface low. It will hit a brick wall though somewhere. My guess is Philly ends up ok but it’s close...any further north though...

Chill I’m just teasing you. I’m probably your biggest fan in here so calm yourself.

We did it’s day 7 so it’s in the day 3-7 thread. Just be glad we have so many threats it’s confusing...that’s a new and good problem to have. Back in the day we just started a storm specific thread pretty early but now everyone is like NOOOO it will kill it because some decided it’s our threads and not our crap climo that kills storms. Short of going back to specific threads having short/medium/long range threads seems the best we can do.

Don’t sell yourself short

You are a stretch...memorable is debatable

Depends Jan 2000 was an east based block. It’s true west is better but it’s not like I’d kick an east block out of bed. It’s still a better pattern then no blocking.

I think we have AMPLE evidence that we’re losing snowstorms on the margins. We keep seeing crap like that in model runs. Some verify some don’t, but we’ve had multiple rain events over the last 5 years that weren’t perfect but I thought “that should have at least been some snow”. Doesn’t mean we can’t snow anymore. Just means it’s harder. Maybe the high has to be 1035 instead of 1032 on some similar setup. Or a marginal pac airmass that barely worked for a 32 degree wet snow paste bomb 30 years ago is a 36 degree rain event now. And yes it’s frustrating.

Inverted trough which draws moisture NW but also warmth. It’s likely at that range wrong and the low should just be adjusted NW instead of having that string out low along the trough. With a better closed low but further up the trough we get the moisture but without the warmth surging among the inverted trough unimpeded. Way too far out for those kinds of meso details.

It has a lot of pattern similarities to PD1. So that kind of system is max potential since that was the big kahuna example of that type of progression. It’s not likely to gain a lot of latitude up the coast. It does have room to amplify to the coast though but it’s likely to move more east then north. Originally like a week ago I thought that wave had a chance to ride the coast but the pattern is progressing the way I thought but slightly slower so the wave after might be more likely to be one that can turn the corner. But we don’t need that to get a big storm if we get a favorable upper low pass with an amplified system. The wave after is more likely to gain latitude along the coast but with that comes possible temperature issues. Way too far out to worry about it yet.

EPS supports another wave also but has it a little faster around the 31. Imo the window for a wave to amplify along the east coast is best between 28-2 or so. The chances to run the coast increases through that window as the blocking relaxes but the chances we lose enough cold starts to increase after the wave on the 28/29. By the 3rd the pattern has started to progress again (after retrogression this week) and the ridge might come too far east and close the window for a time.

Trend...it was totally squashed to a coastal SC storm 24 hours ago. Just like the old gfs it’s more amplified every run. This is typical gfs error.

It’s getting more amplified every run. It’ll get there. But wrong thread.

Yea I’ll give 30 miles...but not 31!!!!!

Both...it’s not nearly as cold or expansive as you would expect given its origin. It’s easily bullied by the southerly mid level flow of a relatively weak wave. That’s sad.

We can afford to shift that 30 miles south...let’s be gracious here.