3/10 and beyond... all the waves threats

[Ralph Wiggum]

6 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

Can you list the reasons why that’s more realistic? Without using the past events or emotional damage?

No blocking, ss flow. semblance of a hybrid SER and full lat WAR on ens means.

[Weather Will]

Not much GEFS support at 6Z for the operational. Compared to yesterday trending in wrong direction. (WB).

[Ralph Wiggum]

[Heisy]

Yea that’s not gonna work….still time to see improvements over SE Canada


.

[mappy]

1 hour ago, Mikeymac5306 said:

I got a bridge to sell if you think the 6z GFS is correct. 

thank goodness we have you to keep us grounded

[LeesburgWx]

We got the crem de la crem run at 192 hours…. At least it’s under 200 hours right? 

[WinterWxLuvr]

25 minutes ago, mappy said:

thank goodness we have you to keep us grounded

It’s Mikey … he likes it!

[mappy]

2 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

It’s Mikey … he likes it!

Ha! All in good fun, of course. 

[psuhoffman]

2 hours ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

Overnight runs musta been great

Haven’t even looked yet. It’s still too far out to be locked in every run. Even if it looks good we need a perfect track this late. Setup is there but if the wave ejects too amplified it will track to our west and that won’t work this late no matter how much confluence. If it ejects too weak it gets suppressed.  I doubt guidance will nail down the final exact solution for a couple days yet. 

[Heisy]

Haven’t even looked yet. It’s still too far out to be locked in every run. Even if it looks good we need a perfect track this late. Setup is there but if the wave ejects too amplified it will track to our west and that won’t work this late no matter how much confluence. If it ejects too weak it gets suppressed.  I doubt guidance will nail down the final exact solution for a couple days yet. 

Just the small increase of leftover confluence and better track made all the difference on the 6z GFS.

I could see elevations of the southeast do better than up here in certain situations because they could take advantage of HP if it ends up moving E



.

[mattie g]

1 hour ago, Weather Will said:

Not much GEFS support at 6Z for the operational. Compared to yesterday trending in wrong direction. (WB).

Dude...we know it's Weather Bell. It says it on the GD images you post!

[psuhoffman]

5 minutes ago, mattie g said:

Dude...we know it's Weather Bell. It says it on the GD images you post!

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/04/less-stress-clearer-thoughts-with-mindfulness-meditation/

[WinterWxLuvr]

50 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Haven’t even looked yet. It’s still too far out to be locked in every run. Even if it looks good we need a perfect track this late. Setup is there but if the wave ejects too amplified it will track to our west and that won’t work this late no matter how much confluence. If it ejects too weak it gets suppressed.  I doubt guidance will nail down the final exact solution for a couple days yet. 

I’m stunned that we don’t have the final solution at this time. These models suck

[Heisy]

6z eps @ 144…. Maybe a little better left over confluence here. Gotta get this thing to take a wide SE track as possibly obviously.



.

[hstorm]

17 minutes ago, Heisy said:

6z eps @ 144…. Maybe a little better left over confluence here. Gotta get this thing to take a wide SE track as possibly obviously.

Somewhat concerned that WB's goons might knee-cap Heisy for not writing WB 6z WB eps WB @ WB 144 (WB)

[psuhoffman]

2 hours ago, Heisy said:

Yea that’s not gonna work….still time to see improvements over SE Canada


.

It's not as bad as the mean looks... it's still far enough out in time that there are some timing differences, add in the outlier members that either have some super cutter from ejecting the wave whole (that won't work so we need not worry about it if that is what happens) or members that squash the wave totally...and it makes sense that we don't see a huge signal on a mean.  This is actually a pretty minor feature on a global scale where a weaker wave (compared to those around it) in a deamplifying flow, attacks a leftover suppressed boundary.  We kind of need a little ridging in front of it or it would likely be no storm at all given the fact its a deamplifying flow in the east at that time.   The real issue IMO is how much energy ejects from the west...how quickly it moves, and how much cold is there to work with.  

[psuhoffman]

I finally had a chance to compare the guidance (euro/CMC/GFS) and the differences are minor for that range.  It comes down to really insignificant (in a global sense) differences in timing, confluence, and amplitude of a scale that the models won't get right for a while yet.  I don't see any compelling reason to say the euro is any more likely that the gfs or even a suppressed solution, of which there are still several options.  

 

But remember, even in a good setup, the odds from this range greatly favor a fail for the simple reason that (especially in this specific setup because of the time of year) we only have a very narrow range that is a win.  We are talking about a box of about 50-100 miles at most...that we need the storm to end up tracking for us to get snow.  The non snow solutions include EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD.  So while I don't think the current evidence suggests any one solution is more likely than another... obviously if I had to take option A: the storm will end up inside this very narrow box" or option B, the storm will end up anywhere else on the whole planet, you would have to be really bad at math and geography to choose A.  

[Wonderdog]

1 minute ago, psuhoffman said:

I finally had a chance to compare the different guidance (euro/CMC/GFS) and the differences are minor for that range.  It really comes down to really insignificant (in a global sense) differences in timing, confluence, and amplitude of a scale that the models won't get right for a while yet.  I don't see any compelling reason to say the euro is any more likely that the gfs or even a suppressed solution, of which there are still several options.  

 

But remember, even in a good setup, the odds from this range greatly favor a fail for the simple reason that (especially in this specific setup because of the time of year) we only have a very narrow range that is a win.  We are talking about a box of about 50-100 miles at most...that we need the storm to end up tracking for us to get snow.  The non snow solutions include EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD.  So while I don't think the current evidence suggests any one solution is more likely than another... obviously if I had to take option A: the storm will end up inside this very narrow box" or option B, the storm will end up anywhere else on the whole planet, you would have to be really bad at math and geography to choose A.  

And I was just going to ask the likelihood that the GFS is correct 7-8 days out from the arrival of the storm considering the signal for this time period has been there for a few days now.

[psuhoffman]

37 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

I’m stunned that we don’t have the final solution at this time. These models suck

They're infinitely better than they were when I started this hobby.  But for some reason people's expectations have outpaced their improvements.  In the 90's we would have killed for models to be as accurate as they are now to day 3 or even 5...but now we complain they aren't more accurate at day 7 or 10.  

[WinterWxLuvr]

39 minutes ago, Heisy said:

6z eps @ 144…. Maybe a little better left over confluence here. Gotta get this thing to take a wide SE track as possibly obviously.



.

Yeah that worked well this weekend 

[WinterWxLuvr]

Just now, psuhoffman said:

They're infinitely better than they were when I started this hobby.  But for some reason people's expectations have outpaced their improvements.  In the 90's we would have killed for models to be as accurate as they are now to day 3 or even 5...but now we complain they aren't more accurate at day 7 or 10.  

I was being sarcastic lol 

[psuhoffman]

1 minute ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

I was being sarcastic lol 

I was just adding that in general.... there are many who are legit upset when the models can't nail down things at day 7 or 10.  I guess the problem is that they run that far so people see it, and I kind of get the logical argument...why even have it if its useless.  Back in the day most of the guidance only went to day 3 or 5.  But on the other hand... pushing the limits is how we improve.  And I don't find them useless as long as you understand you will see lots of permutations from each run at that range and you have to apply some experience and knowledge to parse out which permutations are more likely and know what is likely just a product of chaos.  

[jayyy]

Too early for me to get too invested in the details. Zero shot I’m tracking relatively minute changes at h5 4X a day over the next 200 hours. The threat is there… as PSU said, the peak of the pattern meets the end of snow climo. Details won’t get ironed out this far out and the difference between 6z’s depiction and last nights miss is noise at this range.

All we need to know is the threat is there for now. If it’s still there sub 150 hours, let’s track the fuck out of it.

[psuhoffman]

8 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

Yeah that worked well this weekend 

The SS was suppressed by the NS.  For now (the next NS wave is starting to get dangerously close) the NS is out of the way and its simply a matter of how much the SS amplifies.  

[dallen7908]

It's interesting that only one of the 31 06 UT GEFS members shows measurable snow around the 23rd in College Park.   The 10-day mean snowfall for my backyard is about a 1/4 inch.  Early-April numbers.

 

While this could be chance, It really illustrates the fact  that the parent model of the ensembles is not the operational model.  It is an older version of the operational model.   Hopefully the improvements matter here or perhaps the resolution. 

[stormy]

Preponderance of evidence at 180 hrs. suggests a high probability of a Miller A storm on the east coast early to mid next week. Credible details are impossible at this range. Confidence should be much better by Saturday.

Regarding the GFS snow maps. If the storm brunt reaches north and west to our latitude, heavy snow would be possible from the Blue Ridge westward through the 81 Corridor into the Potomac Highlands. Significant accumulations (more than 3 inches) would be unlikely for the 95 low lands.

[dallen7908]

11 minutes ago, stormy said:

Preponderance of evidence at 180 hrs. suggests a high probability of a Miller A storm on the east coast early to mid next week. Credible details are impossible at this range. Confidence should be much better by Saturday.

Regarding the GFS snow maps. If the storm brunt reaches north and west to our latitude, heavy snow would be possible from the Blue Ridge westward through the 81 Corridor into the Potomac Highlands. Significant accumulations (more than 3 inches) would be unlikely for the 95 low lands.

Good to hear.  One more in the unlikely camp versus the snowball chance in hell camp. 

[psuhoffman]

50 minutes ago, dallen7908 said:

It's interesting that only one of the 31 06 UT GEFS members shows measurable snow around the 23rd in College Park.   The 10-day mean snowfall for my backyard is about a 1/4 inch.  Early-April numbers.

 

While this could be chance, It really illustrates the fact  that the parent model of the ensembles is not the operational model.  It is an older version of the operational model.   Hopefully the improvements matter here or perhaps the resolution. 

According to a press release I found the GEFS was upgraded to the FV3 core in 2020 with version 12.  But perhaps one of our model experts could clarify how aligned the GEFS and GFS op are at this point.  Regardless though I do think this is an example where resolution matters a lot.  We know it's going to be very marginal and the lower resolutions models will struggle with getting the boundary layer exactly correct in a dynamic situation.  And since that is the only win scenario here...I can see why the ensembles would struggle to see the snow threat more here.  It would be a bigger problem if the ensembles had a completely different synoptic solution, suppressed or a cutter...but the fact several of them take a similar track to the op but simply are too warm bothers me a little less.  I mean the whole March 22 thing bothers me plenty enough...just saying the ensembles being a bit warmer than the op isn't shocking imo.  

[Heisy]

Seeing a better cold push on GFS, see if it leads to a similar 6z outcome


.

[psuhoffman]

12z GFS slowed down and amplified the next wave (the one ahead of our storm threat) quite a bit.  That is a good thing imo...but we need a healthy STJ wave that can amplify despite a more suppressive flow.  That is the win imo.  Rooting for a weaker STJ wave is kinda pointless since we need a qpf bomb for this to really work.  Our win is to have both a stronger SS wave AND a more suppressive flow and let the two fight it out.