February Medium/Long Range Thread

[frd]

5 minutes ago, DarkSharkWX said:

Although the Euro has been trending better in some aspects(a more amped upper low, kicker more held back -> more +PNA), the problem here is the tilt. It has been trending more neutrally tilted which is a problem, additionally, the flow out ahead of the TPV lobe is more suppressive, and the southern stream shortwave isn't digging as much, leading to a more OTS solution. Ideally you'd want to see the confluence lift up a bit with the SS digging more for a less flat flow. We'll need an earlier, more robust phase with less flat flow. Looking at old runs that were good for us, the +PNA was good but the key difference was that the trough was more buckled since the SS wave was able to dig more leading to a more negative tilt. The TPV wasn't squashing out the flow in front of it because of this, so now in future runs we'd want to see a relax of more confluence and more buckling of the trough via the SS wave being deeper, and maybe slow down a little bit to raise heights out east and turn the trough negative. 

I don't think the +PNA is the issue here on its own; its a phenomenal change, its the fact that there's other changes which are bad vis a vis the SS wave which makes the flow out ahead of the TPV lobe worse, so that's why despite the Pacific "improving", surface is considerably worse. 
 

 

How much time do we have left for a significant change to more robust storm solution? 

 

 

[DarkSharkWX]

2 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Honestly they both look like we should be worried about a too far NW track not a coastal scraper. I’ve honestly never need so “confused” by model output. I rarely ever see something I’ve never seen before but this is if.
 

A closed h5 low near Chicago and a h7 pass through PA = big snow to our southeast?  Not in any book I’ve ever read. 

i was talking to cody snell yesterday(WPC met) and he said similar things relating to the CIPS analogs being further north. he implied that he was expecting a northern trend(not a huge jump to the NW though) but he said to expect some southern shifts in the next forecast cycles. as you've said multiple times it seems a bit odd that this is so suppressed with a UL strength like that tracking relatively north

[Ji]

Honestly they both look like we should be worried about a too far NW track not a coastal scraper. I’ve honestly never need so “confused” by model output. I rarely ever see something I’ve never seen before but this is if.
 
A closed h5 low near Chicago and a h7 pass through PA = big snow to our southeast?  Not in any book I’ve ever read. 

Jb is confused too

[DarkSharkWX]

2 minutes ago, frd said:

 

How much time do we have left for a significant change to more robust storm solution? 

 

 

modeling is atrocious with TPV setups and ULLs but maybe until tmrw night? id greatly lower expectations though ofc

[TSSN+]

1 minute ago, Ji said:

Jb is confused too

Well he’s always confused anyway so.. 

[DarkSharkWX]

1 minute ago, DarkSharkWX said:

i was talking to cody snell yesterday(WPC met) and he said similar things relating to the CIPS analogs being further north. he implied that he was expecting a northern trend(not a huge jump to the NW though) but he said to expect some southern shifts in the next forecast cycles. as you've said multiple times it seems a bit odd that this is so suppressed with a UL strength like that tracking relatively north

speaking of i think this is an expansion north a bit lmao(the cyan anyways)

[IronTy]

6 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Honestly they both look like we should be worried about a too far NW track not a coastal scraper. I’ve honestly never need so “confused” by model output. I rarely ever see something I’ve never seen before but this is if.
 

A closed h5 low near Chicago and a h7 pass through PA = big snow to our southeast?  Not in any book I’ve ever read. 

You should have identified the impending failure the minute you started to agree with Joe Bastardi. 

[SnowenOutThere]

6 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Honestly they both look like we should be worried about a too far NW track not a coastal scraper. I’ve honestly never need so “confused” by model output. I rarely ever see something I’ve never seen before but this is if.
 

A closed h5 low near Chicago and a h7 pass through PA = big snow to our southeast?  Not in any book I’ve ever read. 

When do you think the models may start to reflect that (if they do at all)? Additionally, does the tilt of the upper level trough not matter in this case?

[HighStakes]

Just now, DarkSharkWX said:

modeling is atrocious with TPV setups and ULLs but maybe until tmrw night? id greatly lower expectations though ofc

I would agree. Maybe 36 hours to see significant change.

[BristowWx]

2 minutes ago, Ji said:

Jb is confused too

Is there an analog for this?  Hard to fathom every model except the NAM favors a SE solution.  

[MillvilleWx]

2 minutes ago, DarkSharkWX said:

i was talking to cody snell yesterday(WPC met) and he said similar things relating to the CIPS analogs being further north. he implied that he was expecting a northern trend(not a huge jump to the NW though) but he said to expect some southern shifts in the next forecast cycles. as you've said multiple times it seems a bit odd that this is so suppressed with a UL strength like that tracking relatively north

Cody is a great Met and great friend I work with at WPC. Something tells me it could trend a bit more NW in the grand scheme, but I still feel this is more for areas southeast of the fall line. We shall see how it all unfolds. I’m curious to see how the NAM Nest starts handling this thing once we get into range. I love the moisture feed with this thing on the S/S wave. The N/S just doesn’t want to play nice, but that is the hardest variable to solve traditionally for NWP. I’m not totally throwing any towels for areas east of Rt15 

[Wetbulbs88]

10 minutes ago, Ji said:

Your using wrong qpf maps

That’s strange. I’m toggling from th

 

10 minutes ago, TSSN+ said:

People need to learn how to read the maps before they post them lol. 

Well you don’t exactly expect it to change runs simply because you toggle between snow map and QPF map. At no point did I choose the 06z or any other run. 

[T. August]

2 minutes ago, Wetbulbs88 said:

That’s strange. I’m toggling from th

 

Well you don’t exactly expect it to change runs simply because you toggle between snow map and QPF map. At no point did I choose the 06z or any other run. 

Yeah not a big deal at all - some maps update later than others so 12z total precip might not have updated yet on TT.

[Wetbulbs88]

Just now, T. August said:

Yeah not a big deal at all - some maps update later than others so 12z total precip might not have updated yet on TT.

That’s  what I just realized too. Thanks. 

[Solution Man]

1 minute ago, T. August said:

Yeah not a big deal at all - some maps update later than others so 12z total precip might not have updated yet on TT.

Yes we are very sensitive here, especially when we are failing 

[TSSN+]

2 minutes ago, T. August said:

Yeah not a big deal at all - some maps update later than others so 12z total precip might not have updated yet on TT.

Euro maps don’t go onto TT till like 330-4pm

 

[psuhoffman]

50 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said:

So it’s trusting the provided info that’s the problem? It’s provided but not to be considered? 

I dont agree.  Many models showed 20” for many runs. Then in the blink of an eye it’s gone.  That’s not science.  
NHC Never predicts a category 1 hitting Miami and we end up with a Cat  3 in Daytona .  They don’t then excuse themselves with how complicated it all is. 

Something to consider. You are comparing a forecast to a model output. The NHC forecast you’re citing uses evidence and model output is one piece of that. But you’re comparing two very different things here aren’t you?  One is a tool to help us get a final product and the other is the final product. 

[WEATHER53]

2 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Something to consider. You are comparing a forecast to a model output. The NHC forecast you’re citing uses evidence and model output is one piece of that. But you’re comparing two very different things here aren’t you?  One is a tool to help us get a final product and the other is the final product. 

Thanks however I read this as “it is but it isn’t”. More  ambiguity. 

[cbmclean]

48 minutes ago, StormyClearweather said:

Amen. And also. NHC does a great job, but there's a cone for a reason. Clearly we need to think about something similar for winter storms. 

Interesting.  Very little improvement between 2010 and 2020 and even a slight decrease past ~100.  Are we running up against a wall in NWP capability until we gett he next big breakthrough?  Perhaps AI?

[Wetbulbs88]

5 minutes ago, Solution Man said:

Yes we are very sensitive here, especially when we are failing 

Trust me I get it. Probably why I posted something as petty as I did

I’m with my wife in NYC for the weekend and my giddiness yesterday morning turned to a drunken nihilism that she finds amusing when there’s stormfail. 
 

As the pros and far more intelligent folks have said the depiction is definitely funky. As long as one of y’all have hope I will too. 

[The Dude]

2 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Something to consider. You are comparing a forecast to a model output. The NHC forecast you’re citing uses evidence and model output is one piece of that. But you’re comparing two very different things here aren’t you?  One is a tool to help us get a final product and the other is the final product. 

This exactly, and if you were comparing the same thing, you'd see that the NWS never forecast a 1+ foot snowfall.  Their forecasts and discussions have consistently mentioned the possibility of the storm missing our area to the south.  Wx53 is right that the models can be wrong.  That's why the forecasters don't simply forecast what the models show.  They digest them as one data point in their forecasting process.

[Ralph Wiggum]

19 minutes ago, Ji said:

Jb is confused too

Flabbergasted is he

[Amped]

Still not a great trend since 12z yesterday, the southern stream looking flatter and more progressive. We need the opposite. 

[Ji]

Thanks however I read this as “it is but it isn’t”. More  ambiguity. 

Without modeling the window that produced these great digital storms on paper would not have been recognized

[mikem81]

any thoughts as to if the double low/convectiomoffshore is messing the LP track? We’ve had that inpast storms with the track from Savannah up the coast 

[TSSN+]

4 minutes ago, Amped said:

Still not a great trend since 12z yesterday, the southern stream looking flatter and more progressive. We need the opposite. 

Just looks more phased there if anything 

[WeatherQ]

20 minutes ago, MillvilleWx said:

Cody is a great Met and great friend I work with at WPC. Something tells me it could trend a bit more NW in the grand scheme, but I still feel this is more for areas southeast of the fall line. We shall see how it all unfolds. I’m curious to see how the NAM Nest starts handling this thing once we get into range. I love the moisture feed with this thing on the S/S wave. The N/S just doesn’t want to play nice, but that is the hardest variable to solve traditionally for NWP. I’m not totally throwing any towels for areas east of Rt15 

Looks like Millville, Ocean View, the DE/MD Beaches and the lower DelMarVa are gonna be the winners, eh? 

[adelphi_sky]

5 minutes ago, Amped said:

Still not a great trend since 12z yesterday, the southern stream looking flatter and more progressive. We need the opposite. 

I really appreciate these animations. It helps to see the progression and how each piece is interacting with each other and why. Helps to understand why the snow maps look the way they do.

[psuhoffman]

36 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said:

Irrelevant

The number of 4” snows that turn into 15+ is like 1,2.  The number of 15* that turn into partly cloudy, rain or 4” is at the least 10X the former 

But don’t almost all our snows not show on guidance at some point also?  Take Jan 6th. That storm was modeled as rain 7+ days out and ended up a 6” snow for DC.  We just don’t treat those the same because it’s what we want. Also keep in mind most of the time a rug pull here ends up snow somewhere else. Your rug pull Jan 19 was a snow for me and PA. Our rug pull now might end up a snow for Norfolk!  The models aren’t “taking out snow away” they are shifting the track of storms which moves the snow area. Sometimes that helps us. Sometimes it hurts us. But maybe because of human nature we focus on the times it hurts us more. There are plenty of times we aren’t in the snow zone 100 hours out and get snow. 
 

BTW I’m not being derogatory, I know there have been some posts like that, don’t lump me in I’m just trying to have a respectful dialogue. 

[adelphi_sky]

1 minute ago, WeatherQ said:

Looks like Millville, Ocean View, the DE/MD Beaches and the lower DelMarVa are gonna be the winners, eh? 

My son and I snow chased at Ocean City the last time they got a foot. We drove back to DC the morning after and there was no snow on the ground. Had fun though. Got a cheap hotel room with an atrium covered pool area.