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

[ryanconway63]

Canadian looks interesting at 84.  not sure where it goes from here

[SnowDreamer]

1 minute ago, nw baltimore wx said:

Even less with the Kuchera.  Sadly, with the current trends, I fear that by Thursday most of us would take this map.

I would give up a limb of the reaper’s choice for that map right now. 

[Dabuckeyes]

1 minute ago, ryanconway63 said:

Canadian looks interesting at 84.  not sure where it goes from here

Looks like it will head east

[Chris78]

The TPV on the cmc is further north compared to the Gfs.

The cmc actually trended the TPV  further north compared to it run last night. 

That's really what we need.

[CentralVaNATS]

Canadian looks interesting at 84.  not sure where it goes from here

Less press up top on the Canadian.
So it should be better than the 0z run or in-line

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[psuhoffman]

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. 

[Baltimorewx]

The Canadian is better than the GFS but it’s certainly no QPF bomb...we would definitely take its outcome though 

[WxUSAF]

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

[Chris78]

Cmc is close to a big hit. 

 

We need to get that D#&n lobe in Canada to get the hell out of the way.

[wawarriors4]

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. 

[blizzardmeiser]

2 minutes ago, WxUSAF said:

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

In this winter that would be epic. 

[LP08]

Gefs agrees with the OP. Qpf cut in half

[psuhoffman]

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. 

[CAPE]

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.

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

[psuhoffman]

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....!!!!!

[jaydreb]

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?

[CAPE]

26 minutes ago, Chris78 said:

The TPV on the cmc is further north compared to the Gfs.

The cmc actually trended the TPV  further north compared to it run last night. 

That's really what we need.

 

 

Look where the TPV was on the CMC a few runs ago. It still produced a nice snowstorm for the area.

[Chris78]

2 minutes ago, CAPE said:

Look where the TPV was on the CMC a few runs ago. It still produced a nice snowstorm for the area.

So what needs to happen? Get the NA trough out of the way to allow to our SW to amplify more/earlier?

[CAPE]

Just now, Chris78 said:

So what needs to happen? Get the NA trough out of the way to allow to our SW to amplify more/earlier?

At this juncture, we can point out what we think needs to happen, but not sure any of it is fixable. Probably should root for the TPV to drop the eff in and phase.

[frd]

33 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

40 minutes ago, osfan24 said:

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. 

The past few winters it appears all the various model ensembles have had major set backs. Statistically speaking I can not prove it, but one could perceive the overall accuracy has declined. If anything,  achieving phasing in a favorable thermal environment is a losing battle the last three years.  Very frustrating for sure. 

[stormtracker]

Now we await the Euro to finish this off and we can go on the hunt for salvaging February.   Which may not be possible?

[cbmclean]

1 minute ago, stormtracker said:

Now we await the Euro to finish this off and we can go on the hunt for salvaging February.   We may not be possible?

That says it all: "We may not be possible"

[stormtracker]

2 minutes ago, cbmclean said:

That says it all: "We may not be possible"

"Which"*

[osfan24]

4 minutes ago, stormtracker said:

Now we await the Euro to finish this off and we can go on the hunt for salvaging February.   We may not be possible?

Yeah, we are probably 24-48 hours away from officially setting our sights on the big President's Day storm.

 

[Dabuckeyes]

Prediction:  Euro shows a slight north tick.  Everyone gets excited and overanalyzes how this may work.  Weather Will shows the same percentage map he has shown the past 3 months. Then we await the HH GFS which pulls the rug.

 

[frd]

Still can't believe the arctic oscillation has been negative since December 1st with several dives down below -2 standard deviations, but  only one event to show for it. Will seasonal wavelengths changes help in February,  hard to tell with the outcomes so far. 

[cbmclean]

Just now, stormtracker said:

"Which"*

I like the original better: "We may not be possible" really expresses the existential crisis that affects snow lovers in the southern half of eastern North America right now.

[cbmclean]

Just now, frd said:

Still can't believe the arctic oscillation has been negative since December 1st with several dives down below -2 standard deviations, but  only one event to show for it. Will seasonal wavelengths changes help in February,  hard to tell with the outcomes so far. 

Cold.  We.  Must.  Have.  Cold.  It is clear that the current seasonal thermal profile is not going to support sufficient dynamics to "make its own cold" for significant snow in the eastern CONUS. 

[psuhoffman]

34 minutes ago, jaydreb said:

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?

Don’t confuse user error with tool error. That poster has no clue how to use nwp. The purpose of ensembles is to tell us what a reasonable range of variability is according to THAT models physical interpretation.  So they can tell us if a situation is highly volition by spread. Or they can tell us if the op likely had a bad run (even by its own physics). But an ensemble can’t correct for the parent operationals biases and core mistakes because it is a derivative of that model.  You have to look at other guidance.  
 

Furthermore the guidance didn’t fail here. It’s done pretty good. From like 200-360 hours it identified this general setup. And it keyed on a possible event on the mid Atlantic coast. But from that range they cannon accurately predict the discreet details, like a weak wave that lingers and lowers heights some in front of it or a vort cut off under a block meandering around in Canada, that will determine exactly how amplified and exactly where a storm hits. If you’re judging NWP by details on synoptic events at day 7+ then that’s like grading your QB only by his completion rate on 50 yard Hail Mary passes.  
 

As we got within 7 days the preponderance of evidence started to show warts that threatened this event. The gfs showing a snowstorm doesn’t mean “guidance says a snowstorm”. The best guidance we have the euro has been saying hold on for days now.  The second best the UK was never on board. The ggem was the next most amplified but it was further south and its ensembles were even less enthused.  Most of the JV models were south. Taken in totality the evidence suggested the gfs was over amplified. We expected this to happen.  We all knew the gfs all alone was likely to cave.  I had hoped maybe the guidance across the board was dampening the wave coming out of the west too much but the last 24 hours the lack of why move that way in the euro and UK and the slow degradation in the gfs and ggem had me realizing where this was likely headed. Not for sure yet but don’t look good. 
 

  Imo guidance has been incredibly good giving us a good idea how this threat was evolving at a good range if you know how to be unbiased and use them. 

[jaydreb]

Just now, psuhoffman said:

Don’t confuse user error with tool error. That poster has no clue how to use nwp. The purpose of ensembles is to tell us what a reasonable range of variability is according to THAT models physical interpretation.  So they can tell us if a situation is highly volition by spread. Or they can tell us if the op likely had a bad run (even by its own physics). But an ensemble can’t correct for the parent operationals biases and core mistakes because it is a derivative of that model.  You have to look at other guidance.  
 

Furthermore the guidance didn’t fail here. It’s done pretty good. From like 200-360 hours it identified this general setup. And it keyed on a possible event on the mid Atlantic coast. But from that range they cannon accurately predict the discreet details, like a weak wave that lingers and lowers heights some in front of it or a vort cut off under a block meandering around in Canada, that will determine exactly how amplified and exactly where a storm hits. If you’re judging NWP by details on synoptic events at day 7+ then that’s like grading your QB only by his completion rate on 50 yard Hail Mary passes.  
 

As we got within 7 days the preponderance of evidence started to show warts that threatened this event. The gfs showing a snowstorm doesn’t mean “guidance says a snowstorm”. The best guidance we have the euro has been saying hold on for days now.  The second best the UK was never on board. The ggem was the next most amplified but it was further south and its ensembles were even less enthused.  Most of the JV models were south. Taken in totality the evidence suggested the gfs was over amplified. We expected this to happen.  We all knew the gfs all alone was likely to cave.  I had hoped maybe the guidance across the board was dampening the wave coming out of the west too much but the last 24 hours the lack of why move that way in the euro and UK and the slow degradation in the gfs and ggem had me realizing where this was likely headed. Not for sure yet but don’t look good. 
 

  Imo guidance has been incredibly good giving us a good idea how this threat was evolving at a good range of you know how to be unbiased and use them. 

Thanks.  Sounds like guidance as a whole has been good but the GEFS/GFS appears to be terrible.  I guess we kinda knew that.