Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,607
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

January Storm Term Threat Discussions (Day 3 - Day 7)


WxUSAF
 Share

Recommended Posts

The gfs and the para looked different on all runs leading up to this point with the para being the best for most of us, but they don't look to be that far apart anymore.  Thursday is still a storm and four days away, so I'll keep watching but the para is definitely more in line with the other more south models.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

Is it such a terrible spot to be in 4 days out, though? Still looks close to me...

No this setup is bleeding the wrong way. Has been for the last several days honestly but somehow the gfs continued to amplify the h5 way more then all other guidance anyways. But the trough in front is slowing down more and more, that tpv in Canada is diving south more each run and the combination is compressing the flow a lot more. Frankly had the h5 flow looked the way it does now when I got excited 10 days ago I probably wouldn’t have. Imo the bigger failure is the wave Monday.   The progression sped up. That wave is happening during our best window wrt the Rex block and trough retrogression. But frankly the pathetic lack of cold F’d that up. No nice boundary for the wave to focus along, and that’s hey because it’s a surface driven not upper level wave.  So it’s  washing out and we weren’t even cold enough anyways if it hadn’t to maintain heavy snow.  But simply from a pattern progression that was our best shot to get a simple overrunning snow in DC.  The timing has changed for the next wave. The trough amplifies too much off the east coast and the ridge stops retrograding behind it. The wave after has a better chance to amplify but by then what pathetically little cold there is has eroded even more since the polar source is cut off. Imo the root of the fail was we had 5 days of epo ridge that opened a direct air feed off the Arctic straight down into southern Canada and the northern US...but that air quickly modified and mixed to become just an average blah airmass. That limited the potential of EVERY discreet threat within the blocking window.  Created the double bind. Less potential energy from a weaker boundary. Made us need more suppression to stay cold. But less likely to get amplified waves.  It’s not 100% over. Weirder things have happened. But I’m past the point of expecting it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately in this case the upper level pattern is trending unfavorably for our latitude. The 500 ridge out west is setting up too far east over the Plains where ideally it should be over the western states. Upper level low over southern Canada with the high nosing leads to a more progressive and southern system. The 500 energy comes at us more west to east vs a larger cutoff feature given the pattern. Unless we see changes to these features, the southern/progressive/slider type of a system would continue.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, chris21 said:

I’d also think that traditionally, with a low as strong as the GFS is depicting moving across southern Virginia it would create a larger shield of snow on the north side. 

Less cold less resistance to WAA less lift less healthy precip shield to the north. We’ve seen that all year with every wave. The path to overcoming that here was when it was an extremely amplified bomb. It’s a balance. A weak wave with a weak WAA flow can create lift by having a deep hard to move cold airmass that resists the WAA creating lift. With less cold you need the flow from the wave to be stronger to compensate. Of course that opens the door to rain lol. See!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, osfan24 said:

Agreed. The GEFS is completely worthless. Basically locked into some kind of snowstorm, and now we aren't at all.

The ensembles are only as good as the operational they are based on. They can’t help if the core model is wrong.  Their usefulness is in telling us of the operational had a fluke run and went off on a tangent due to some discreet error even by its own physics.  They offer a scope of variability within the physics of that model. But if the model is wrong about something due to a core bias that flaw will infect the ensembles also.  All the ensembles agreeing with the op said was that the op wasn’t a fluke within its own physics parameters. But ensembles don’t ensure the models physical representations are sound.  You need to compare to other guidance to determine and guess at that. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, WxUSAF said:

GGEM surface low looks north of its 0z run, but less precipitation. Still a 3-6” event forum wide.

At this point, I think everyone would love a 3-6" event, would be great. But I think we are so scarred up from the past few year that we all kind of knew where this was heading, but still 4 days away. Strange things happen sometimes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys I’ve done the whole “reason with yourself” thing but better to just rip the bandaid off.  The trends are all the wrong way. And we’re hitting the 100 hour mark where guidance typically doesn’t make huge adjustments to major factors anymore.  Today was a crucial day to hold or see improvement and it went the wrong way.   
 

It’s not OVER but it’s on life support Imo.  let it go. That doesn’t actually have any effect on if this pulls off the rare comeback.   Then it’s still gonna feel great. But don’t torture yourself anymore.  Don't prolong the suffering.  I’m gonna go find something fun to do. Peace. 

  • Like 11
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interaction with the NA trough is the main issue on the last couple GFS runs imo. Doesn't allow the wave to deepen as rapidly/close to the coast. The Euro has had this look, and seems to have been the primary difference when comparing it to the better GFS runs.

1611813600-cQgFMQX7c5w.png

12z  yesterday was still a pretty decent run. Look at the difference:

1611813600-sEhmk5QPMDM.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last thing...After my last “emotional” post I should admit I’m clouded by location and expectation. If I was DC south this probably would still hold more interest to me and a lot in here are. And if I was just chasing a few inches I certainly wouldn’t give up. But I was kinda big game hunting and just found out there are only some rabbits and squirrels left in my area so I’m going home to drink a beer instead. If an elk just happens to wander by though....!!!!!

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

The ensembles are only as good as the operational they are based on. They can’t help if the core model is wrong.  Their usefulness is in telling us of the operational had a fluke run and went off on a tangent due to some discreet error even by its own physics.  They offer a scope of variability within the physics of that model. But if the model is wrong about something due to a core bias that flaw will infect the ensembles also.  All the ensembles agreeing with the op said was that the op wasn’t a fluke within its own physics parameters. But ensembles don’t ensure the models physical representations are sound.  You need to compare to other guidance to determine and guess at that. 

So I’m starting to agree with that poster who always pops in to say the models suck.  If an ensemble suite can show that much certainty within 5 days and be wrong then what’s the point of having it at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...