Jan Medium/Long Range Disco 2: Total Obliteration is Coming

[Ji]

2 minutes ago, midatlanticweather said:

Is there model validation on specific ensembles? Like certain ones are more reliable than others? Just curious

 

just go with the ones that give you the least snow. They are the most reliable

[Stormchaserchuck1]

Aleutian island block may help this thing trend NW in the coming days.. It's not like we are in some deep +pna pattern, the pacific is still favorable for a slight SE ridge.. maybe this works to our favor this time. Either way, the Euro and GFS ensembles in agreement is usually a good combo

[psuhoffman]

24 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said:

Monster  low near Hudson mostly does not work 

It complicates things.  It can work...but you're right it adds another level of complexity and we don't usually do complicated.  The first big storm in January 1987 was an example of how a Hudson bay vortex can work though...but it requires us to get the NS to play nice with the STJ and lately we know how that often ends.  

[Terpeast]

2 minutes ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

Aleutian island block may help this thing trend NW in the coming days.. It's not like we are in some deep +pna pattern, the pacific is still favorable for a slight SE ridge.. maybe this works to our favor this time. Either way, the Euro and GFS ensembles in agreement is usually a good combo

Now if you're a weenie, you'll love what Chuck is saying now. 

All it will take is for a slight 50-100 mile shift in the TPV to pull the track back up (or further suppress it)

[psuhoffman]

3 minutes ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

Aleutian island block may help this thing trend NW in the coming days.. It's not like we are in some deep +pna pattern, the pacific is still favorable for a slight SE ridge.. maybe this works to our favor this time. Either way, the Euro and GFS ensembles in agreement is usually a good combo

OK we need to put out an APB for the real Chuck.  They have him tied up to a chair in a basement somewhere.  

[psuhoffman]

12 minutes ago, midatlanticweather said:

Is there model validation on specific ensembles? Like certain ones are more reliable than others? Just curious

 

That's not how they work.  All the effort is put into making the operational (and ensemble control just at lower resolution) as accurate as possible.  The purpose of the individual ensemble members is actually to produce a spread of solutions.  Because we know we will not initialize the atmosphere completely correctly AND we won't be able to project it perfectly even if we did...they produce members that have been slightly perturbed (changed) in some way in order to show a spectrum of possibilities to account for the errors.  

This can tell us a variety of things.  At long leads the average of all those solutions is way more accurate than the operational.  Even though the operational is the most accurate at short leads, over time chaos takes over and the average of a ton of slightly perturbed runs is more likely to catch what is most likely going to happen in the distant future than any one run.  

It can also help tell us if the operation just had a hiccup and spit out a bad run.  If the ensemble members are all different even at shorter leads its likely the op got something wrong.  

But I don't think they track each members accuracy scores.  The goal isn't to create a specific member that is accurate.  I'm not even sure the same members are perturbed the same way each run.  I would be curious about that myself.  

[Warm Nose]

[Ducks and runs]

 

[psuhoffman]

47 minutes 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?

it's not so much confluence here as simply where the boundary ends up, but if the TPV were to shift slightly and that boundary ends up further NW that would help yes.  There are other moving parts though,  a stronger wave would help also.  

[WEATHER53]

22 minutes ago, TowsonWeather said:

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.

You can always bite me and/or use the ignore feature. It takes a maturity level that you lack to not lash out if your model babies get called ugly

i dont believe I ever  directed anything directly to you so your attack at me is immature and inappropriate. Also you are foolishly arrogant to pose  as some sort of board spokesman .

The ignore feature is yours. I will have no need to speak to you again. Models suck at predicting snow for around here. If you can’t deal with that then keep it to yourself. 

[WEATHER53]

18 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

It complicates things.  It can work...but you're right it adds another level of complexity and we don't usually do complicated.  The first big storm in January 1987 was an example of how a Hudson bay vortex can work though...but it requires us to get the NS to play nice with the STJ and lately we know how that often ends.  

It can be good for cold air but always seems our low gets scooted east. Is that because of the counter clockwise flow around the Hudson Bay Area?

[CAPE]

The snow mean on the 12z EPS is pretty damn similar to the 0z and 6z runs. 1.5 -3".

12z is obv a bit better for the immediate coastal areas. Cold HR stuff.

[psuhoffman]

Just now, CAPE said:

The snow mean on the 12z EPS is pretty damn similar to the 0z and 6z runs. 1.5 -3".

12z is obv a bit better for the immediate coastal areas. Cold HR stuff.

But there was a significant drop in the probabilities.  There was an increase in suppressed OTS solutions.  But were getting into the range where the ensembles follow the op trends mostly.  It's not some horrible proclamation, it was a bad run of the euro, op and ens.  So what, its been wrong plenty lately.  If we take an average of where ALL the guidance is right now its actually a pretty decent solution for us, and I would prefer needing that than ANY one model right now.  

It's slightly troubling the euro went off on a tangent with a suppressed solution today, because yes it has the best physics and so if one model will sniff out some change first its the most likely, so yea I would prefer it to be some other model off on the tangent....but I still wouldn't take the euro v EVERYTHING ELSE.  The other models that fail actually do it in the oppposite way, too amplified!  Well except the icon but having that POS in your camp is actually a mark of shame.  

[stormtracker]

35 minutes ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

Aleutian island block may help this thing trend NW in the coming days.. It's not like we are in some deep +pna pattern, the pacific is still favorable for a slight SE ridge.. maybe this works to our favor this time. Either way, the Euro and GFS ensembles in agreement is usually a good combo

Y’all talking so much shit and you haven’t even noticed Chuck’s account has been hacked 

[Terpeast]

I think I know why the Euro spit out a way different solution, and I think it's weird. I'll also show why the CMC showed something different, like a closer track with ptype issues.

Euro has this trailing vort that's pretty strong, but never phases with the TPV. Instead, they stay separate, while they squeeze the positively tilted wave further SE. Too much confluence over us.

 

The Canadian otoh has a weaker trailing vort that's further behind... either less relevant, or loses energy to the lead vort that closes off west of the mississippi. This is the other end of the spectrum vs. the euro. Less confluence up top doesn't help either.

 

Now the GFS shows the cleanest solution. Where is that trailing vort? There isn't one. Instead we have tall ridging into NW Canada/Alaska. We have an open wave rotating under the TPV with more confluence to the NE. 

 

I don't know what to make of the trailing vort shown on the Euro and Canadian, and the lack thereof on the GFS. Maybe they're both picking up on something that the GFS is missing. But it's something to keep an eye on.

 

On the other hand, the TPV seems to be well modeled and in fairly good agreement with all 3 models. 

I think the Euro solution is weird because the strong trailing vort and the TPV never manages to phase. From a physics standpoint, I think they should. But they don't. 

 

[LeesburgWx]

We were complaining the GFS wasn't showing snow. Now it shows snow and we still cliff jump. I don't know what to believe anymore

[IronTy]

JB made a post about how he wasn't expecting the euro 12Z output.  That's probably the final nail in the coffin, euro can be locked in.  

[psuhoffman]

13 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said:

It can be good for cold air but always seems our low gets scooted east. Is that because of the counter clockwise flow around the Hudson Bay Area?

Having a strong vortex there creates 2 complications IMO.  It can be a suppressive element.  It guarantees the northern stream will be diving down and rotating pieces of energy over us.  Unless they time up and phase where we need them that can act to squash the southern stream waves we need.  We could see that next week.  It can also cause a cutter.  If the TPV wobbles west and phases it can create a bomb storm that cuts even in a -NAO.  We are seeing that this week.  

I have long stated my preference if we get a blocking regime is to have a very weak or no TPV at all on our side.  And yes I know that creates the issue of will it be cold enough.  But historically having the NS out of the way completely during a split flow pattern is the most likely path to snow here.  It's less complicated.  Just get some southern stream wave to come along and amplify without any NS interference.  Just have to be cold enough.  Yea I know...thats been a problem too.  

[psuhoffman]

36 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

OK we need to put out an APB for the real Chuck.  They have him tied up to a chair in a basement somewhere.  

 

5 minutes ago, stormtracker said:

Y’all talking so much shit and you haven’t even noticed Chuck’s account has been hacked 

We're running out of time.  Did they deliver a ransom note?  

[CAPE]

1 minute ago, psuhoffman said:

But there was a significant drop in the probabilities.  There was an increase in suppressed OTS solutions.  But were getting into the range where the ensembles follow the op trends mostly.  It's not some horrible proclamation, it was a bad run of the euro, op and ens.  So what, its been wrong plenty lately.  If we take an average of where ALL the guidance is right now its actually a pretty decent solution for us, and I would prefer needing that than ANY one model right now.  

It's slightly troubling the euro went off on a tangent with a suppressed solution today, because yes it has the best physics and so if one model will sniff out some change first its the most likely, so yea I would prefer it to be some other model off on the tangent....but I still wouldn't take the euro v EVERYTHING ELSE.  The other models that fail actually do it in the oppposite way, too amplified!  Well except the icon but having that POS in your camp is actually a mark of shame.  

Look at the members on the last 3 GEFS runs. Same thing. Still a fair amount of uncertainty. Filtering the run to run noise, there is a signal for a light to moderate snow event for much of our region on the means. 

[stormtracker]

6 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

 

We're running out of time.  Did they deliver a ransom note?  

They want 1mil and a few tacos from my Taco Tuesday and immunity from shut ups.  Money was ok, but the latter was a non starter. Still negotiating. 

[caviman2201]

My bar here really is low... I'll be satisfied with >1" of cold smoke... first 1" snow in 2 full years

[brooklynwx99]

for reference, that 09 east of Georgia is the OP. massive weak/southern outlier 

[Terpeast]

Just now, brooklynwx99 said:

for reference, that 09 east of Georgia is the OP. massive weak/southern outlier 

Is that the one next to the 13?

and how do you know that's the OP?

 

[Interstate]

What does the NAM say?

 

[Stormchaserchuck1]

18z NAM is a little flatter vs 12z GFS fwiw

https://ibb.co/ftdFKW1

Hudson Bay low is moving all around.. it would be nice to get that to phase

https://ibb.co/gjBvWfw

[BristowWx]

2 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

Is that the one next to the 13?

and how do you know that's the OP?

 

I thought 09 was one of the better ones in that frame.  Shows what I know…nothing 

[psuhoffman]

11 minutes ago, stormtracker said:

They want 1mil and a few tacos from my Taco Tuesday and immunity from shut ups.  Money was ok, but the latter was a non starter. Still negotiating. 

Did you throw in the bus to sweeten the pot?  

[Solution Man]

4 minutes ago, Interstate said:

What does the NAM say?

 

Not As Much

[Heisy]

for reference, that 09 east of Georgia is the OP. massive weak/southern outlier 

.

[Interstate]

7 minutes ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

18z NAM is a little flatter vs 12z GFS fwiw

https://ibb.co/ftdFKW1

Hudson Bay low is moving all around.. it would be nice to get that to phase

https://ibb.co/gjBvWfw

NAM is also hanging the energy back in the SW