Tracking Jan 7 coastal storm. Lingering compression/flow velocity has not lent to consensus, but it seems at 30 hours out.. finally?

[STILL N OF PIKE]

4 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

3K looked a lot better than its brother.

That’s both looked like dog doody. I mean let’s not get silly .

[Snowcrazed71]

At this juncture, could we see the other major models come in that different than the NAM? I mean... It's only 48 hours out. Just trying to be real ( and its tiring when we are grasping at straws as we get within 48 hours ). 

[CoastalWx]

1 minute ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

That’s both looked like dog doody. 

It was already dropping 1-2” with good snows at 12z Friday. 

[mahk_webstah]

1 minute ago, Snowcrazed71 said:

At this juncture, could we see the other major models come in that different than the NAM? I mean... It's only 48 hours out. Just trying to be real ( and its tiring when we are grasping at straws as we get within 48 hours ). 

The answer to your question is......YES

[78Blizzard]

3 minutes ago, eduggs said:

The surface isn't the problem. Weather isn't generated at the surface. Ls and Hs don't do anything - they have no causal effect. They form and evolve in response to what happens in the upper levels.

I know all that.  I was talking about the energy being transferred.

[dryslot]

I'm looking around trying to find my weenie tags, Looks like we will need several.

[Sn0waddict]

4 minutes ago, IowaStorm05 said:

NAM comes thru to give me one inch of snow… from a system that’s barely over 48 hours away.

Thats a major red flag.

Pretty sure the NAM was giving DCA nothing 48 hours out from the snowstorm that hit them this week. Didn’t end up being much of a red flag.

[eduggs]

7 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

I can discard a single run of the NAM, absolutely - watch me. When the 0z suite is over, if it is lending support to one or more globals, then I'll bring it into the fold. By itself, it's not relevant. I've seen it be on NAM island more times than I can remember.

From a forecasting perspective, discarding individual models runs - without obvious cause - will lead to forecast bias. From a hobbyist perspective, it will lead to false expectations and disappointment. We've seen it a million times. 

If it's an outlier run, is it unreliable or the first to sniff out a trend? Without knowing the final outcome we cannot know which model runs to consider or discard. That's why it's best to consider all the major model outcomes as plausible and deal in probabilities, not absolutes.

[IowaStorm05]

1 minute ago, Sn0waddict said:

Pretty sure the NAM was giving DCA nothing 48 hours out from the snowstorm that hit them this week. Didn’t end up being much of a red flag.

True. But this isn’t that storm or that location. 

[STILL N OF PIKE]

3 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

It was already dropping 1-2” with good snows at 12z Friday. 

Looks like it Was pushing more ENE than NE And prob advisory for Just Bos-PVD SE. But ya still better than the garbage OP

[78Blizzard]

5 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

i will say, there's a fallacy here - the NAM has 6 hours on the "current" Euro. my point is, I'd like to see the whole 0z suite

So do I.  But that wasn't what was asked.

[The 4 Seasons]

1 minute ago, dryslot said:

I'm looking around trying to find my weenie tags, Looks like we will need several.

Thank you my blood pressure is rising reading some of these comments 

[Go Kart Mozart]

14 minutes ago, George001 said:

I’m still more worried about mixing than the weaker solutions verifying. 

I don't know George, the NAVGEM (one of the big three) is weak sauce.

[JC-CT]

1 minute ago, eduggs said:

From a forecasting perspective, discarding individual models runs - without obvious cause - will lead to forecast bias. From a hobbyist perspective, it will lead to false expectations and disappointment. We've seen it a million times. 

If it's an outlier run, is it unreliable or the first to sniff out a trend? Without knowing the final outcome we cannot know which model runs to consider or discard. That's why it's best to consider all the major model outcomes as plausible and deal in probabilities, not absolutes.

the obvious cause it that it's the NAM, and it's not reliable.

[George001]

Just now, Go Kart Mozart said:

I don't know George, the NAVGEM (one of the big three) is weak sauce.

It is, but it came west at 18z. Still needs improvements though.

[JC-CT]

How did this work out?

[dryslot]

1 minute ago, The 4 Seasons said:

Thank you my blood pressure is rising reading some of these comments 

Some really need to stop posting, There mouth is out running their brain like that convective blob out ahead of the surface low.

[JC-CT]

1 minute ago, JC-CT said:

How did this work out?

Hint: it does better from 3 hours out.

[eduggs]

8 minutes ago, dryslot said:

EPS 51 - Nam 1, If your scoring at home.

EPS didn't do so great for the Mid-Atlantic snowstorm from 48 hours out. It was 40 miles too far NW with accumulating snow. The NAM correctly kept the meaningful precipitation further south. All of the major models lead the pack for some events and on some runs.

[78Blizzard]

4 minutes ago, eduggs said:

From a forecasting perspective, discarding individual models runs - without obvious cause - will lead to forecast bias. From a hobbyist perspective, it will lead to false expectations and disappointment. We've seen it a million times. 

If it's an outlier run, is it unreliable or the first to sniff out a trend? Without knowing the final outcome we cannot know which model runs to consider or discard. That's why it's best to consider all the major model outcomes as plausible and deal in probabilities, not absolutes.

That's assuming the NAM is considered a major model.  I don't.

[IowaStorm05]

1 minute ago, dryslot said:

Some really need to stop posting, There mouth is out running their brain like that convective blob out ahead of the surface low.

What’s the problem with the convective blob? Does it cause subsidence or something or otherwise pull energy out of our system from its adjacency and weight?

And it is an ugly and lame blob as far as convection goes. Not exactly a forerunner of a tropical development lmao.

[JC-CT]

Just now, eduggs said:

EPS didn't do so great for the Mid-Atlantic snowstorm from 48 hours out. It was 40 miles too far NW with accumulating snow. The NAM correctly kept the meaningful precipitation further south. All of the major models lead the pack for some events and on some runs.

it certainly kept it south, all right

[40/70 Benchmark]

13 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

i will say, there's a fallacy here - the NAM has 6 hours on the "current" Euro. my point is, I'd like to see the whole 0z suite

Totally agree. I think its concerning.

[PhineasC]

16 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

3K looked a lot better than its brother.

... for SE MA.

[JC-CT]

well anyway, by see the whole 0z suite, I really meant the 6z suite when I wake up tomorrow. Let's hope it shows lots of  and maybe even a little  because that would be ironic

[Greg]

[dryslot]

3 minutes ago, eduggs said:

EPS didn't do so great for the Mid-Atlantic snowstorm from 48 hours out. It was 40 miles too far NW with accumulating snow. The NAM correctly kept the meaningful precipitation further south. All of the major models lead the pack for some events and on some runs.

In general, I don't think any one model has performed very well inside 72 hrs on any event.

[eduggs]

2 minutes ago, 78Blizzard said:

That's assuming the NAM is considered a major model.  I don't.

I think it's significant that the NAM has decreased the sharpness and amplitude of the 500mb trof for several successive runs today. That's doesn't mean I can predict the future or change your mind if you disagree. It's just an opinion.

[JC-CT]

1 minute ago, PhineasC said:

... for SE MA.

it was the same crappy synoptic evolution but it didn't look quite as shredded with the qpf anyway

[ice1972]

4 hours ago, JC-CT said:

I do see Jan 2011 showing up on CIPS lol (the 2nd one)

Oh please god make that happen