psuhoffman

it was better then last run lol. But really want to go crazy...the TPV lobe that was supposed to slide across in front of the monday wave and help suppress the flow over top of that wave...and keep it from cutting...slowed down sooo much that not only did it allow that Monday wave to get out in front of it and drive north but its still around and compressing the flow over the top of the storm later in the week. LOL

CMC went north for the next storm also. Unless the GFS is correct with ejecting a weak POS wave out west...and I won't buy that until I see evidence on something other then the GFS at range... I wouldn't worry too much about that yet. This first storm Monday is slipping away though unless we see a reversal soon.

@stormtracker One of the things screwing us over is how the TPV lobe up in Canada has shifted the last 48 hours. Remember we were looking at how the GFS was phasing that out west and other guidance was shifting it east and sliding it across on top. Well the GFS caved on that western phase idea...and for a moment all guidance looked good. But what has happened the last 48 hours is that piece of the TPV that breaks off and slides across Canada has slowed down every run. And now instead of it being in front of the wave suppressing the flow over top of it it slowed down so much that the wave got in front of it...which allows it to ride north more. Without a true cold airmass in the way...all it takes is something small like that because we were living on the edge to begin with.

Ok let me clarify what I meant above before I start a panic....this run of the GFS does not bother me because its the GFS and its all over the place at this range. But...the way it suppressed the storm on THIS run was a more realistic scenario. What I saw on the last few runs didn't bother me at all because it was suppressing the storm for the wrong reasons. So...as long as none of the other guidance trends to a weak pathetic flat wave ejecting out west tonight...we are fine. But if we start to see across guidance a trend weaker with the upper level low coming across that is BAD because that is what is driving this storm. There has to be an amplifying upper level low to our west to pump ridging for this scenario to work. The trough axis is off the east coast and the flow is NW to SE...this isnt a type of setup where a surface low is going to amplify up the coast along the baroclinic boundary. This only works if we have a strong upper level center to our west pumping heights into the confluence to our NE creating a strong inverted trough for a low to amplify along. That won't work if the upper low is weak.

If we're going to fail might as well do it in the most epic way possible!!!

too weak... the wave was simply too weak and couldn't amplify at all. Dampened as it came east. We need a healthier wave to eject from that western trough then that. Just the GFS but that run troubled me slightly more then the last few misses to the south because that was at least consistent with itself. If the wave that ejects out west is that weak...it will go south. The other runs were just doing stupid GFS stuff but the storm should have been further north. This run did was it will do IF that wave is actually that weak.

What's sad is its not like the block isn't doing its job...this storm isnt very amplified...it only rides north because its following the thermal boundary and that is so far north...but no precip even makes it to Boston and NYC is on the northern fringe. And yet DC is all rain...think about that. Even with a block strong enough to stop a system dead in its tracks and force is southeast such that from a primary that far NW anyone northeast of NYC gets no precip...and we still can't get frozen...on JANUARY 26!!!!!!!!!!!!! Frankly the whole lack of frozen to the north and northeast of the low is amazing given the blocking on top and the time of year. Amazing scarily pathetic! Rant over...our only hope is that the globals are pressing the boundary too far north with such a relatively weak wave and that blocking over the top. But the trend is all the wrong way for 48 hours now.

No I posted the 18z NAM in comparison to the GFS showing that same thing...and 0z NAM went even further in that direction 0z. We all know its the NAM at 84 hours. But the typical bias for the NAM at range is over amped not under. The NAM also might be better suited to handle the thermal profile which might impact the ridging in front...this is not a particularly amplified system that will automatically bully the flow. Once in a while the NAM sniffs something out. Lets just hope this is one of those "once in a while". We all know the risks of believing anything the NAM has to say at range though so its fine to point out the NAM would probably be a good outcome. It's ok to dream!!!

This isn’t a setup like when we’ve missed South recently. The gfs doesn’t have a weak wave off Florida while the euro targets NC and we’re kidding ourselves about “north trend”. The cmc ensembles are targeting just north of us eps right over us and gefs just south. but forget the clown maps look at the setup... this is the most suppressed gefs. But the pattern doesn’t support that. That’s a healthy upper level disturbance (1) and look at where the 50/50 is. This isn’t a case where there is a vortex over or just north of Maine like most of those suppressed examples lately and we are acting like maybe that will somehow relax. The 50/50 is well NE. If it wasn’t for the block so far SW this would likely be a rain problem with that 50/50 location. Look at the latitude of the upper low and the ridging ahead of it. Even on the gefs that doesn’t look suppressed to me. I would think anyone south of the red line is ok. I wouldn’t want to be north of there and the blue line is the “probably smoking cirrus” line. The 18z euro is even more bullish look at the ridging already in front...and that upper low is coming across at a pretty high latitude. There isn’t enough pna ridge to really dig that into the southeast like the last few. I think the eps/geps has the right idea here. Frankly Imo the gefs itself doesn’t really support that much suppression.

Don’t worry it will adjust north.

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.