87storms Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 1 minute ago, baltosquid said: Don't quote me, but I think we just need the TPV to ease off a bit... ridging increasing behind the storm bodes well for it amplifying in a vacuum but it needs room and the TPV won't give it any! Ease off too much though and with ridging behind like that, could risk too much amplification I think. We're pretty good at light precip events showing up within a few days. It happens with rain, but we just care more when it's snow lol. As long as there's sustained cold, the chances are up that we'll get something out of it. The issue is that we haven't really had sustained cold...so that's why I'm more interested in tracking that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terpeast Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Op euro probably on the SE side of the ensemble envelope, which means we can't rule a solution like that out. At least most members are more NW of the op 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caviman2201 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 The mean QPF did shift SE significantly though from 00z though 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER53 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 1 hour ago, Weather Will said: WB 12Z GEFS, I would wait on starting a thread. Is that around 20F at 850s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caviman2201 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Thats prob not a great trend... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCAlexandria Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 3 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: That’s not gonna work. not for your neck of the woods 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paleocene Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 12 EPS snow depth mean 00z 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulythegun Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Generally speaking, you don't want to see the confluence setup OVER WASHINGTON DC 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Oddly all the guidance at 12z kinda fell into their biases I've observed, GGEM/UKMET over amped, ICON progressive, GFS too far SE, except the Euro which was off on its own planet. Just an observation, not sure what to do with it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 1 minute ago, caviman2201 said: Thats prob not a great trend... whatever thing it takes not to get snow....happens. Un canny DT says no to dr no though 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstorm Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Agree with someone else posted way back. Wondering if this weekend system that hasn't passed through yet is still throwing things off across the board. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayyy Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 [mention=2035]Bob Chill[/mention] was 100% right about the relax. Ive not been concerned about it and thought it would be VERY brief, but now I'm starting to think it doesn't even happen at all. The higher heights are actually mostly from higher avg heights above the levels we give a crap about, the low and mid levels are reasonably cold, and the STJ is undercutting the pattern with a beautiful EPO/PNA ridge. We could get a snowstorm easy in what was supposed to be the "relax". Then all 3 major guidance systems transition back to a -AO/NAO regime with the STJ undercutting a EPO/PNA ridge. That is the "it" look and it holds for the whole month of Feb on all guidance. I am glad I didn't lower my seasonal snowfall totals when I was thinking about it a week or two ago. Been a while since I’ve seen you genuinely excited for a longwave pattern that sets up for more than a brief window of time. Probably since feb 2022, but even then, I believe you were cautiously optimistic as the typical caveats applied. Been a while since we haven’t had to rely on everything lining up perfectly. The tall tale sign of a good MA snow pattern is having numerous ways to score, not just one outcome that requires 5-6-7 different things to lineup perfectly. The CFS and other ensembles do look ridiculously good for February. Delayed but not denied if that were to pan out. Yes, it’s somewhat annoying that we’ve had to wait til 1/16 and beyond to see snow in our area but in reality, that’s only about 3’ish weeks into winter and we all know February is our money maker. All it takes is a decent or better showing from one or both of these next waves (16th and 20th) and an active February to put us above climo - potentially well above climo. IF models are correct about February showcasing a pattern that sustains a -AO/NAO/EPO regime, then woof. I also agree that if we have those lined up, we don’t want some big dog +PNA. Congrats NYC and new England if that happens. Give me a reloading -AO - NAO -EPO with a near neutral PNA and I bet we score big. Things are obviously going to shift around a bit, but models have generally nailed the longwave pattern 2-3-4 weeks out since fall. Exciting times, no doubt. . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER53 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 54 minutes ago, Deck Pic said: Congrats How can anything that is “scientific” jump around like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris78 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 2 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: Oddly all the guidance at 12z kinda fell into their biases I've observed, GGEM/UKMET over amped, ICON progressive, GFS too far SE, except the Euro which was off on its own planet. Just an observation, not sure what to do with it. Models are definitely having a hard time with all the moving pieces. This might be weenie talk lol but it certainly seems like confiuence always ends up further north than advertised from Day 5+ on the models. Would less confluence give us a better outcome? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terpeast Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 1 minute ago, Chris78 said: Models are definitely having a hard time with all the moving pieces. This might be weenie talk lol but it certainly seems like confiuence always ends up further north than advertised from Day 5+ on the models. Would less confluence give us a better outcome? My hunch is that we'll see another tick north once the models resolve the next few days. That's been the repetitive theme as far as I can remember. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooklynwx99 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 i'd much rather pull this thing NW than SE at this range, that's for certain 7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthArlington101 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 We lost .5"-1" on the median from 00z -> 12z. . Which is bad - means a lot more members show zilch. 1 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nj2va Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 1 minute ago, Terpeast said: My hunch is that we'll see another tick north once the models resolve the next few days. That's been the repetitive theme as far as I can remember. Yes, I'd rather see the ensembles SE at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 4 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said: How can anything that is “scientific” jump around like this? models are really great with longwave patterns and whether its going to be cold or not and if there is a general threat or not...but we are probably years away from being able to model a storm properly past 5 days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER53 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Monster low near Hudson mostly does not work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 10 minutes ago, DCAlexandria said: not for your neck of the woods Well duh...if I lived in VA beach or Richmond VA or Ocean City MD I might like how that mean looks...but I don't I live in this area. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 1 minute ago, nj2va said: Yes, I'd rather see the ensembles SE at this point. not me. This is one of those events where when we need a North shift...it will shift even more south 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER53 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Just now, Ji said: models are really great with longwave patterns and whether its going to be cold or not and if there is a general threat or not...but we are probably years away from being able to model a storm properly past 5 days Yes they do hit cold outbreaks very well. With storms the amount of “ingredients” is just too tough to decipher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomeguyfromTakomaPark Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 7 minutes ago, NorthArlington101 said: We lost .5"-1" on the median from 00z -> 12z. . Which is bad - means a lot more members show zilch. This is actually a pretty good spot to be in IMO at day 5. Heaviest precip to our southeast while some other models showing everything more NW. Take a blend of everything and it's a snowstorm for us. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 11 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said: How can anything that is “scientific” jump around like this? Think about the ensembles. They make minor perturbation's to the initial conditions and it completely changes the outcome once you get out past a few days because very minor differences at short ranges become exponential at 100+ hours. So even if we had the math perfected to perfectly predict the atmosphere (which we dont) we still couldnt actually do it because we don't have 100% accurate measurements from every inch of the atmosphere to initialize hour 0. And unless you get the initial 0 hour totally 100% correct the rest of your projection will be wrong and the further out in time you go the more wrong it will be. So what happens is every run we do the best way can with all our observations and satellite and aircraft data input into the model to initialize the atmosphere correctly. Then the model uses that to project whats going to happen. But then the next run we get new observations and it sees what we got wrong last time and fixes it, and that changes the outcome. Sometimes not much, certainly not much at 6 or 12 or 24 hours...but out at 100 hours pretty minor changes can have huge impacts. A couple MB wrong with a feature at 6 hours can end up changing the result by hundreds of miles at 120 hours away. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 29 minutes ago, Ji said: @psuhoffmani hope we dont do this 8-0 thing again instead of 8-3 8-0 is way more probable than 8-3. On the grand scheme of things the snow with any wave is a pretty small geographic area. The degree of error we need in either direction to go from 8 to 3 is way way way less than the permutations that can produce 0. A HUGE area will get 0 lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TowsonWeather Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 21 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said: How can anything that is “scientific” jump around like this? It's been explained to you a thousand times and yet you keep asking. Which isn't because you want an answer, you just want to whine at everyone in the form of a question. We get it. We really do get it. We know you think weather models suck. I promise, additional rounds of passive aggressive "questions" aren't needed. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midatlanticweather Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Is there model validation on specific ensembles? Like certain ones are more reliable than others? Just curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 52 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said: Even in said Shakespeare hypothetical...the worse part would be that we really wouldn't have an answer...as a suppressed pattern wouldn't answer the "too warm" question as that would be more of a bad luck thing, right? Depends...if we truly go suppressed and don't get anymore legit threats yea I would say it would be unfair to blame this on the elephant in the room. But...we've already wasted a couple "in the box" storms this year. We need a system to track through a specific area for us to get a snowstorm. How many of those chances you think we get in a winter? In 2010 there were 5. DC only wasted 1 and it was very early Dec, places just NW got snow. The other 4 all produced significant snow. 2016 had 5 and DC partially wasted 4 of them. A couple had some degree of mixed precip and some snow, one was in March and was just too warm, one was early January and still too warm following the Dec torch...but out of 5 perfect tracks only 1 produced big snow. Luckily it was BIG BIG BIG snow. But that's why 2016 wasnt 2010, both had 5 storms through our box but 4/5 were too warm in 2016 v 1/5 in 2010. If at the end of the winter we had 4 or 5 waves that took a perfect track and only 1 or worse none produced snow...then I think its fair to say the elephant had something to do with it. IF we go the rest of this winter without anymore ideal track systems then maybe we chalk it up to more of a fluke thing. But will any of us even survive the slaughterhouse this place will become by then to do that analysis anyways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormy Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 At this point the deck is stacked against the Op. Euro. It is an outlier without a friend. The EPS, GFS and GGEM all say yes and it is Dr. NO If the 18z GFS stands pat, I believe the 00z Euro will come back into the fold. If the 18z GFS collapses , well....... better luck next time. Remember, the models are smarter than we are. Wouldn't it be nice if they gave a 3 paragraph reasoning explanation of every run? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now