Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,697
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Ptkalogu
    Newest Member
    Ptkalogu
    Joined

1/19 - The Weekend Roulette Wheel Thing


DDweatherman
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ji said:


lol I read the thread. Every storm is a south and east hit nowadays

It was a compliment. Wow

Odd compliment. There is context to my post going back to last night. I think it's probably unlikely we see an amped wave in this situation with warning level snow. Everything looks progressive to me. Could be wrong. Go look at the members on the 0z EPS run.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ji said:


Trending stronger more north over past 3 runs

Exactly, it went from just about nothing at 18z yesterday, to getting some light snow to southeast of 95 at 0z, to now getting the 2 inch line up to DC & Philly at 6z.

I think it’s just starting to catch on & likely is not done trending.

Here are the last 3 GFS runs as a visual.

IMG_8495.png

IMG_8493.png

IMG_8492.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CAPE said:

And the heavier snow is south and east. @psuhoffman

1737374400-lrwSr8XwrFA.png


 

That’s not as heavy as the solutions that are NW (UKMET and GGEM). But the GFS thinks the boundary is about 100 miles southeast of where those models have it. It suddenly has a stronger more amplified wave but it located it differently.  

The euro had been shifting SE because for 3 straight runs it simply had a weaker less amplified wave. If you only change the amplitude of the wave it either increases snowfall and shifts it NW or decreases snow and shifts it southeast. 

But there are two variables. Actually more but two main ones. The amplitude is definitely linked to the location of the snow zone. A more amplified wave favors a further NW track. But if guidance is wrong about the location of the front and the front is further southeast that can offset. The gfs changed both variables simultaneously which resulted in a further SE but stronger snow solution. 

A stronger snowier solution definitely favors a NW track unless you also tweak a second variable and shift the boundary to compensate for a more amplified wave wanting to shift the thermal boundary NW  

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

No thanks. Later is never more realistic. Give me a few inches during football with true arctic air please. 

Agree except I’d rather this not hit during the Eagles game. They’re the much better team. I don’t want anything that could cause a fluke or give a team we would normally dog walk a chance. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@CAPE this is also another reason why I prefer waves to be south on guidance in a progressive boundary wave pattern. Because then you’re rooting for a more amplified stringer storm to shift it north!  It’s not actually more likely (I’ve had plenty of examples of these shifting south into me also) but it’s more fun. The examples where it shifted south also tend to make it a less exciting storm. Take 2014, in March at 72 hours when a wave was supposed to hit PA it was supposed to be a 12-24” snow. It ended up a 4-8” snow in VA because the wave was weaker so it ended up south. Conversely the early Feb wave was shown as a 3-6” snow in VA at 72 hours and ended up a 6-12” snow up in PA. 
 

I’d rather be rooting for a stronger wave with higher snow but unless you change other variables that usually shifts a progressive boundary wave northwest.  If you’re rooting for a south shift in general you have to root for a weaker storm. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:


 

That’s not as heavy as the solutions that are NW (UKMET and GGEM). But the GFS thinks the boundary is about 100 miles southeast of where those models have it. It suddenly has a stronger more amplified wave but it located it differently.  

The euro had been shifting SE because for 3 straight runs it simply had a weaker less amplified wave. If you only change the amplitude of the wave it either increases snowfall and shifts it NW or decreases snow and shifts it southeast. 

But there are two variables. Actually more but two main ones. The amplitude is definitely linked to the location of the snow zone. A more amplified wave favors a further NW track. But of guidance is wrong about the location is the front and the front is further southeast that can offset. The gfs changed both variables simultaneously which resulted in a further SE bit stronger snow solution. 

A stronger snowier solution definitely favors a NW track unless you also tweak a second variable and shift the boundary to compensate for a more amplified wave wanting to shift the thermal boundary NW  

 

I get what you are saying, but there are always multiple variables at play that factor in to the ultimate outcome. In this case it is more where the thermal boundary is located vs a more amped wave. The flow is relatively flat and west to east, and the vorticity is stretched out accordingly, underneath an upper level jet streak. Compare the vorticity on the 6z GFS and 6z Euro runs. No real dig in either case, and a subtle difference in the boundary location. For all practical purposes their outcomes are the same. In this situation the heavier snow(such that it will be) could be biased a bit NW or SE.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Blizzard of 93 said:

The models are coming around to the Canadian idea.

Meet in the middle & we are all happy.

 

Mount Holly with only a 30 % probability of snow Sunday evening, that might be updating later today.  Snow before the Siberian airmass moves in would be aswesome ! 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, frd said:

 

Mount Holly with only a 30 % probability of snow Sunday evening, that might be updating later today.  Snow before the Siberian airmass moves in would be aswesome ! 

 

Yeah that may be increased depending on the next few model cycles. Their general thinking I believe is that the push of Arctic air will favor coastal development more southward/offshore.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CAPE said:

Yeah that may be increased depending on the next few model cycles. Their general thinking I believe is that the push of Arctic air will favor coastal development more southward/offshore.

I do recall from my childhood , way way back , this type of acrtic front has brought surprises in regards to snowfall being higher then what was forecasted days prior.  

Will be cool to observe over the next several days. 

Lastly, not sure about the effect on sensible weather, but the NAO is dropping agian, wonder the implications for Sunday night's event and the later system next week. 

The  NAO HA signal is there between the  22 nd and 24 th. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...