Get ready for the great MW/GL storm of Dec 19-21

[dilly84]

Thanks, Roger. Appreciate the update. Sounds like your favored track hasn't changed. Will be interesting to see if the models come around to a solution more similar to yours. Obviously there are huge differences at this point.

I'm sure folks west of the apps will be interested in future updates as this is an ideal storm track for heavy OH valley snows.

Lets put it this way. I followed Roger on eastern, and he is good at what he does. Im not sure I am buying this one though. Not 1 model has shown even close to an APPS runner. But I will say this Roger, if you nail this one, then I'll say youre the best forecaster on here.

[NEOH]

Lets put it this way. I followed Roger on eastern, and he is good at what he does. Im not sure I am buying this one though. Not 1 model has show even close to an APPS runner. But I will say this Roger, if you nail this one, then I'll say youre the best forecaster on here.

I followed Roger on Eastern as well. His forecasting method certainly is interesting. He makes some bold calls (like what he calling for in this thread). Maybe he nails this one or maybe not. Time will tell.

[buckeye]

if we have an app runner on the 20-21st....

you would be DUH MAN.

if the current models OTS verify.....you just duh.

[dilly84]

I followed Roger on Eastern as well. His forecasting method certainly is interesting. He makes some bold calls (like what he calling for in this thread). Maybe he nails this one or maybe not. Time will tell.

I am saying nope. I think it'll be supressed to the south. ^ days away from the 21st, and there isnt one single model that agrees with this apps runner. Actually I dont think one is even close.

if we have an app runner on the 20-21st....

you would be DUH MAN.

if the current models OTS verify.....you just duh.

funny stuff. As said above, no model suggests an apps runner.

[buckeye]

I am saying nope. I think it'll be supressed to the south. ^ days away from the 21st, and there isnt one single model that agrees with this apps runner. Actually I dont think one is even close.

not only is there not a single model that shows it, i haven't seen a single ensemble member show it.

[Feb]

not only is there not a single model that shows it, i haven't seen a single ensemble member show it.

I'm a good 400 miles at least east of you and i'm missing this one to the east.

[PhineasC]

I think this guy is forecasting for Mars, not Earth

[PhineasC]

As far as I can tell this guy called for something to happen at some point affecting some place near the United States from December 19-22 and for the moon to possibly be involved. Bold call!

[Eduardo]

As far as I can tell this guy called for something to happen at some point affecting some place near the United States from December 19-22 and for the moon to possibly be involved. Bold call!

High and Low tide?

[PhineasC]

High and Low tide?

I believe if a tide change occurs at any point in the Continental United States from midnight on the 19th through midnight on the 23rd his forecast verifies.

[Jebman]

Thanks for posting your methodology, no matter how outlandish it seems. I won't go after your methodology since I haven't seen the verifications of your forecasts yet. I would have thought that you would have saved the Eastern threads in the 2 weeks you had to do it, since it appears that Eastern was the only place you stored all of the information related to your theoretical forecasting. Such important data and verification should not be put on something that is not in your control.

I strongly agree. It is a good thing to be extremely passionate about recording material that is important to you. As a result of the total and utterly irretrievable loss of all Eastern US Weather Forums data and pictures, I have become totally obsessed with recording EVERYTHING that interests me from American Weather Forums on MULTIPLE media. The total loss of everything about the epic winter of 2009-2010 illustrates the utter necessity of being totally obsessive about recording everything of interest. You never know when someone in charge of the database will be so G-damned reclusive that they will refuse to disclose database information that could have been used to save the data accumulated over 7-8 years. That outcome is DISGUSTING AS HELL - What a G-damned WASTE of EVERYONE'S time!!!!!!!!! Everything that was ever on Eastern is a TOTAL LOSS - Never again to be seen. Subversive governments in all of Man's history could not have done a better job of throwing everything Eastern down the memory hole, 1984 style - Absolutely DISGUSTING for All-Time!!

It will NEVER happen to me, ever again. I am absolutely OBSESSED with keeping records and with getting EVERYTHING I like off of American and onto various media. I am going so far as to record many of my own posts - Including THIS very post.

It will NEVER happen to me again, EVER.

Fool me once - Shame on you.

Fool me TWICE - Shame on ME.

All of those meteorologists who freely, lovingly published their very hearts out on Eastern - All of their precious collaborative works are GONE, GONE FOREVER. All those precious model threads during major breaking weather events that contained valuable data - data that would have complimented the 30 year datasets - All of it GONE FOREVER. Think of all the hard work that those degreed mets put into Eastern over 7 years. A fortune in data and personal experiences and pictures and videos, all gone. It is enough to bring a grown man, a hardened prison con even, to tears, if the con loved weather. All those precious snow pics, all the historical information and analyses and researched datasets set forth on Eastern, all rubbed out forever. A researcher could cry for decades over this loss.

[vortmax]

Wow, aren't you all a bit hard on him?? Let's not forget the last storm we just had... Up until 3 days or so before it occurred, the models easily had a 400+ mile variance on the primary low. With this very unusual pattern, it's very possible that the model's don't quite have a handle on this one yet as well...just sayin...

[NEOH]

Wow, aren't you all a bit hard on him?? Let's not forget the last storm we just had... Up until 3 days or so before it occurred, the models easily had a 400+ mile variance on the primary low. With this very unusual pattern, it's very possible that the model's don't quite have a handle on this one yet as well...just sayin...

Excellent point. Can you even count the number of times that the models change dramatically within a 3 day period? Remember last years HOVS (that just about every model showed) that washed out to sea days later? I have no forecasting expertise/skill whatsoever which is why I enjoy these boards so much. I enjoy following Roger's posts as they seem to go against the grain and make some people on here uncomfortable.

What does notable met like to say... when everyone is thinking the same way someone isn't thinking?

[buckeye]

Excellent point. Can you even count the number of times that the models change dramatically within a 3 day period? Remember last years HOVS (that just about every model showed) that washed out to sea days later? I have no forecasting expertise/skill whatsoever which is why I enjoy these boards so much. I enjoy following Roger's posts as they seem to go against the grain and make some people on here uncomfortable.

What does notable met like to say... when everyone is thinking the same way someone isn't thinking?

Your first sentence is a good point, however there is always at least one model...one model run...somewhere...somehow...that at least would show the possibility by now. The fact of the matter is the closest ensemble member i've seen to roger's forecast is still like 800 miles too far east (and that's not even an op run). During that HOVS debacle a couple of years ago, not every model was showing that, some were much further east. Also, at some point you need to start looking at upper air patterns and asking yourself what would need to happen, or what should these models start showing that back roger's idea. Every model shows a vortex over southeastern Canada that is way too far south and no where near west enough to permit the kind of ridging ahead and wavelength spacing to get a mid continental trough to dig and go negative in time to bring a low up that far west.

[Roger Smith]

The only way to test somebody's forecasting skill, I believe, is to run a fairly extensive comparison with all parties making forecasts from the same time range for the same locations. This sort of exercise is different in that we're just discussing how a research model identifies a possible storm at a particular time. This really doesn't test my forecasting skill, it tests the accuracy of a research model in one of what could easily be thousands of possible tests. Of course, I do this with my research on a routine basis, I chose to discuss this one event because it looked challenging and there was no early sign of the storm anywhere on any model.

Now, as to people already being sure I am talking about a different storm that is off the east coast at similar times, that would only "compute" in my mind if there is no organized wave or low in the close vicinity of timing line one as described. What may instead be happening, if these perceptions prove accurate (and they are GFS-driven perceptions) is that timing line two has the upper hand on energy and that timing line one, with some secondary feature roughly in the area under consideration, is the one out of phase. This happens on timing line one, for example at last year's full moon event end of Dec 2009 into Jan 1-2 2010 when we had that retrograde low coming back from near NS towards MA, but that was understandable theoretically (from my perspective) as the retrograde index was still about a week from peaking and we had the warm block over Greenland. Can't recall without checking maps but there was probably some weaker system back in the central plains while that storm was circling around, and that would have been the timing line one event at that point.

But getting back to what's actually going to happen here, somebody was saying above that I'm "claiming" that models are all in error, fact is, all but one have to be in error if they are wildly different, and perhaps all are in error. What I'm saying here today is that my early theoretical call appears to be too far north and so I have been continuously adjusting it. This is a feature of all theoretical research modelling, until it's no longer theoretical and becomes empirical. Like it or lump it, this is exactly the thought process of every practising weather forecaster using any model known at this time scale. We are always looking at them, assessing whether we think they are right on, or if we can detect a systematic error, and sometimes a really good forecast can be made by saying, "bet the GFS has that too far east" but otherwise accepting the model solution (in other words, shifting the grid rather than changing the shape of the output).

My theoretical forecast here could be in trouble on track or on intensity. Some tracks involve different ranges of possible intensity too. I hope people interested in this understand those paradigms. If a similar storm to the one predicted happens three days later, that would be the next event in the energy level "agenda" which contains events of various types occurring about every 3-4 days. I listed some of those in the LRF thread. The way things set up this winter, there are events at a fairly regular clip every 3-4 days, but some weaker ones in an agenda that also includes some harmonics. Last winter, I'm sure people here must remember this thread, we had a long discussion about a major storm to happen near timing line one on Jan 30th that basically verified a bit on the late side in terms of timing and a bit south in terms of track, but no doubt a major storm, the first of the series of major snowfall events for the MA region.

I've been really busy with forecasting over in the UK and Ireland where they are facing a very unusual winter storm situation next 4-5 days and so I've hardly looked at N American data or models all day. I'm hoping it is a rather quiet day and that people have time to read all these ramblings, but it may be a while until I get back into this forum (like tonight or Thursday). Anyway, some model is going to look good by event time. I have the feeling it won't be the GFS. It also looks quite different in Europe from the other models. Basically, you should hope I am on to something because it might help get all these models to work better in the long run.

[PhineasC]

I just read all of that and have no clue what you are talking about. What is your forecast?

[buckeye]

I just read all of that and have no clue what you are talking about. What is your forecast?

this is the line i found interesting, and quite bold, "you should hope I am on to something because it might help get all these models to work better in the long run".

if this sucker ends up out to sea or close to the coast, it's not the models that are going to need help....

[beavis1729]

Why don't people realize that science is all about pushing the envelope and investigating new things? Sure, there will be many failures...but what's the point if we never venture into new areas?

Keep doing your work, Roger - we need more folks like you.

[buckeye]

fair is fair....

Now that the gfs is throwing the first storm OTS it is leaving room for the next incoming shortwave to have some playing room. Right now it only appears to dig a little bit and looks like a decent clipper event, however with time, it could very well begin digging more in the modelling. This would be Dec 21st.....

[Ellinwood]

Why don't people realize that science is all about pushing the envelope and investigating new things? Sure, there will be many failures...but what's the point if we never venture into new areas?

Keep doing your work, Roger - we need more folks like you.

No doubt new methods need to be and should be explored. I have no arguments with doing research and entering new grounds. However, to stick with the apps runner call with 0 support is foolish.

I'm not hating on his research... just his bullheadedness.

I just read all of that and have no clue what you are talking about. What is your forecast?

This. If you're changing your timing of the event, say something like "I was wrong about the 19-21 scenario... it looks more like the 21-23." Or if you're sticking with the system on the 19-21 say "I was wrong in calling the 19-21 an apps runner since it appears to be along the coast or OTS."

You can wait to do that part until the 19th

[trapperman]

Buried in the Central/Western sub forum...

My link

[Roger Smith]

Whatever happens eventually, the rather large changes in the GFS on the Dec 16 00z run should be noted. What was to be a strong offshore low heading for SNE is now much further east and in my terminology it is the event for timing line 2 of the system. Meanwhile, the GFS is suddenly interested in the Midwest and lower Great Lakes. I had a quick look at the Euro and it seems to be more like the GFS was yesterday only not as strong. The GEM (CMC) has decided to slow down the plains states development relative to its previous run. I've lost track of where the UKMO global output is found nowadays, had it bookmarked on Eastern.

Is it just my imagination, or are the models having more problems than usual this past month?

If that's the case, would it be surprising if my research model had more problems than usual too?

Until this event actually happens, we won't know for sure. But I promise not to claim the event is somewhere else, it has to be in the margins I posted and not off the coast or way out to the west. Some sort of energy will be near that timing line but I would say we need to see a vigorous system that has at least 0.5" QPF to be even at the bottom end of verification range for an energy peak this strong. The average index value would be over 1" QPF and the suggested central pressure in the 980 mb range. So if we get something like a 995 mb low dropping 3-6" of snow in roughly the right area, that's an error in intensity.

Anyway, I would kill for any kind of weather at all here, we are now in about day 10 of a prolonged blah-wave.

[Ellinwood]

Whatever happens eventually, the rather large changes in the GFS on the Dec 16 00z run should be noted. What was to be a strong offshore low heading for SNE is now much further east and in my terminology it is the event for timing line 2 of the system. Meanwhile, the GFS is suddenly interested in the Midwest and lower Great Lakes. I had a quick look at the Euro and it seems to be more like the GFS was yesterday only not as strong. The GEM (CMC) has decided to slow down the plains states development relative to its previous run. I've lost track of where the UKMO global output is found nowadays, had it bookmarked on Eastern.

Is it just my imagination, or are the models having more problems than usual this past month?

If that's the case, would it be surprising if my research model had more problems than usual too?

Until this event actually happens, we won't know for sure. But I promise not to claim the event is somewhere else, it has to be in the margins I posted and not off the coast or way out to the west. Some sort of energy will be near that timing line but I would say we need to see a vigorous system that has at least 0.5" QPF to be even at the bottom end of verification range for an energy peak this strong. The average index value would be over 1" QPF and the suggested central pressure in the 980 mb range. So if we get something like a 995 mb low dropping 3-6" of snow in roughly the right area, that's an error in intensity.

Anyway, I would kill for any kind of weather at all here, we are now in about day 10 of a prolonged blah-wave.

Yes they are, and no it's not surprising. I'm just trying to get an objective analysis and verification to your forecast.

[IWXwx]

I don't know what everyone's so amped up about. Roger posted that his research model is showing a major storm for the GL/MW area for Dec 21. He's also stating that it will not verify if it isn't around 980 mb. He has stated that he won't claim forecast success with any other outcome. Let's just see what happens.

I also want to point out that he posted this back on the 8th. How many runs of the 360 hr GFS show a major storm? If those all verified, we'd all have snow up to our a** all winter. Yet we still produce and use it as a valid forecasting tool.

I for one, am interested in whether his forecast verifies. I might find that he may be more accurate than that long-range GFS.

[Analog96]

Yes they are, and no it's not surprising. I'm just trying to get an objective analysis and verification to your forecast.

From past experience, models have more trouble than normal in La Ninas, probably due to the faster jet stream.

[Roger Smith]

I now have a Charlie Brown relationship with the GFS, one run good, next one bad, then so-so. At least that model has determined that something will be present near the OV on Dec 21, the GEM has something similar. My best chance would be for the models to shift east on the offshore low as some earlier runs had hinted, and leave some room for this central plains low to develop. I don't think there's enough time now to lift the flow and get a really impressive low, but there is time to improve correlation from the poor range to the fair range. If Chicagoland gets 5" of snow out of this system, I will feel that there was some method to the madness in this case. What I would like to see for further improvement is for this system to remain independent to the coast and not get sucked into the backside of the downstream low. Some other features are verifying better than this one, for example the retrograde block at high latitudes.

[Feb]

I just went out and howled at the moon three times. It told me it wants it's rocks back.

[NEOH]

I now have a Charlie Brown relationship with the GFS, one run good, next one bad, then so-so. At least that model has determined that something will be present near the OV on Dec 21, the GEM has something similar. My best chance would be for the models to shift east on the offshore low as some earlier runs had hinted, and leave some room for this central plains low to develop. I don't think there's enough time now to lift the flow and get a really impressive low, but there is time to improve correlation from the poor range to the fair range. If Chicagoland gets 5" of snow out of this system, I will feel that there was some method to the madness in this case. What I would like to see for further improvement is for this system to remain independent to the coast and not get sucked into the backside of the downstream low. Some other features are verifying better than this one, for example the retrograde block at high latitudes.

I've been trying to follow this thread for a while. Just to confirm... you've gone from a LA to NY state storm track... to now a plains low giving CHI five inches? Sounds like more madness than method... which can probably be said for most models.

[michsnowfreak]

Buried in the Central/Western sub forum...

My link

The Dec 11-13th storm, if I recall several days before the storm, we had the usual east coast vs midwest threat threads, but it clearly became a huge midwest/Great Lakes snowstorm while another L deluged the east in rain. Now, this Dec 19-22nd period seems to be a little different. Could be a snowstorm in the midwest AND east coast?

[Ellinwood]

Could we see some of the output that you're interpreting off of? It would be nice to see what's going on vs. hearing your sometimes convoluted interpretations.