Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,794
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    manaja
    Newest Member
    manaja
    Joined

February Medium/Long Range Thread

stormtracker

By stormtracker,
in Mid Atlantic

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

stormtracker
stormtracker
stormtracker
stormtracker

Ok, I got two camps about the thread.  Do I open Ji's storm thread NOW or wait until 12z tomorrow?  Hit the "100" reaction for now and Trophy cup reaction for tomorrow and I'll move accordingly.   vot

brooklynwx99
brooklynwx99

Next week's system has become increasingly ominous and holds potential for significant to major impacts from DC - NYC and even BOS. There are a few features that make this such a favorable setup, mirr

Posted Images

psuhoffman

psuhoffman

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, WxMan1 said:

 

What irks me about all of this is here we are, 2025, and the global models still struggle consistently locking in with a system for 5+ days out during the winter. At least, one that's going to involve snow for the DMV. 

 

Rain storms April through November? No problem. It always seems that the models are generally in better agreement. Whether It's split flow, northern and southern stream contributions, amplified waves or not. Same sampling issues, or lack thereof, that we have with winter storm tracks here in the East. Can't figure it out, unless it's just anecdotal on my part.

This is where I thought AI would help, and maybe to some extent it is. But even the EC AIFS has bounced around with solutions between days 4-7.

 

I think snowstorms are more difficult because you’re adding additional variables because they tend to run along the thermal boundary and involve stream interactions. 
 

Summer precip events are almost always convective or frontal passages. I don’t think that’s a good comp. Several years ago I tested this hypothesis and tracked early spring and late fall rain events that more closely resembled the synoptic physics of a winter storm and found the models sucked ass at those also. Several times a 1.25 qpf output for me at day 5 ended up south of me or so far north that I definitely would have gone from snow to rain had that been part of the equation.  We just don’t remember those busts as much. Losing an inch of rain doesn’t hurt. Actually it means I got another day on the golf course, bike trails or hiking in.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TSSN+

TSSN+

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

JB update

This is really pretty interesting. The better the upper air pattern goes with the negatives coming right through the slot, the further out the model pushes the storm. Well at the very least if it’s right I’ll get to see something that I can’t recall seeing. That kind of negative should produce an I 95 blizzard DC to Boston So the call from February 11 remains if I have to change it I’ll change it on Tuesday because until this feature comes out of the Rockies I’ve said too many of these flip flop around. If you’re standing on the ledge don’t jump off yet 

Jb hasn’t been relevant since Nom 

  • clap 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Amped

Amped

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

Completely losing the ridging out front.

Exactly, too many posts in this forum overcomplicate things.  

More downstream ridging= Further north track

Less downstream ridging= Further south track.

Ot works out at least 95% of the time unless you're looking at the Nam.

Edit: whoops meant downstream not upstream.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDweatherman

DDweatherman

Posted
Posted
Just now, Fozz said:

This looks as if I’d expect it to cut west of us and be a rainer.

This is very puzzling to say the least.

I saw what amped said above about ridging upstream, but to be fair it was very flat relatively on the initial image. Not a huge trend there. 
 

id more attribute it to the more rounded tpv but a more positive/neutral tilt if anything. That and there being very little phase activity to YANK or TUG this N/W

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ravensrule

ravensrule

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, DDweatherman said:

I saw what amped said above about ridging upstream, but to be fair it was very flat relatively on the initial image. Not a huge trend there. 
 

id more attribute it to the more rounded tpv but a more positive/neutral tilt if anything. That and there being very little phase activity to YANK or TUG this N/W

There will be yanking and tugging by tomorrow night. 

  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
psuhoffman

psuhoffman

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

JB update

This is really pretty interesting. The better the upper air pattern goes with the negatives coming right through the slot, the further out the model pushes the storm. Well at the very least if it’s right I’ll get to see something that I can’t recall seeing. That kind of negative should produce an I 95 blizzard DC to Boston So the call from February 11 remains if I have to change it I’ll change it on Tuesday because until this feature comes out of the Rockies I’ve said too many of these flip flop around. If you’re standing on the ledge don’t jump off yet 

So it’s scary that I’m on team JB.  But can’t deny he just said what I’ve been saying. lol. Ugh 

One point I’d contest is 95 Blizzard. That’s typical JB hype. The best h5 analogs I found were secs-MECS level events. The h5 track is actually NW of ideal for those 1983, 1996, 2003, 2010, 2016 type storms.  It’s also not oriented like those were. But the weird part is the reason most of the comp storms I saw weren’t bigger along 95 was mixing issues not a miss south. lol. But it’s most definitely not similar to any “miss to our southeast” analog comp.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
adelphi_sky

adelphi_sky

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

So it’s scary that I’m on team JB.  But can’t deny he just said what I’ve been saying. lol. Ugh 

One point I’d contest is 95 Blizzard. That’s typical JB hype. The best h5 analogs I found were secs-MECS level events. The h5 track is actually NW of ideal for those 1983, 1996, 2003, 2010, 2016 type storms.  It’s also not oriented like those were. But the weird part is the reason most of the comp storms I saw weren’t bigger along 95 was mixing issues not a miss south. lol. But it’s most definitely not similar to any “miss to our southeast” analog comp.  

It's good to find confirmation in your thoughts. Would be nice if LWX chimed in with the same thoughts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
psuhoffman

psuhoffman

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Amped said:

Exactly, too many posts in this forum overcomplicate things.  

More downstream ridging= Further north track

Less downstream ridging= Further south track.

Ot works out at least 95% of the time unless you're looking at the Nam.

Edit: whoops meant downstream not upstream.

Yea but that’s adjusting a track I never understood. Even when the surface track was perfect for us I was kinda worried about it cutting more. Not to the point we got no snow but enough that the bigger snow ends up NW is us. The track had never aligned with the h5 even when it was looking good for us. So yea I see why the flatter look is shifting the track south. But that’s shifting a track I already didn’t understand why it was so out of alignment with the flow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
psuhoffman

psuhoffman

Posted
Posted

I stand by the point I’m making.  But just because I’ve never seen anything like this doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Not going DT here. It does mean it’s a very rare anomaly and I’m not ready to concede that’s what’s gonna happen but rate anomalies do happen.  So just because there hasn’t been a case like this in our upper level records doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t happen.  The closer we get the more I have to accept the possibility but I’m holding out until tomorrow night.  If we don’t see any hints by the 0z Tuesday runs I’ll put up the white flat  

 

  • Like 4
  • clap 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wonderdog

Wonderdog

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, psuhoffman said:

I stand by the point I’m making.  But just because I’ve never seen anything like this doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Not going DT here. It does mean it’s a very rare anomaly and I’m not ready to concede that’s what’s gonna happen but rate anomalies do happen.  So just because there hasn’t been a case like this in our upper level records doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t happen.  The closer we get the more I have to accept the possibility but I’m holding out until tomorrow night.  If we don’t see any hints by the 0z Tuesday runs I’ll put up the white flat  

 

You can't concede before JB. What if you both are right? Let him concede first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Imgoinhungry

Imgoinhungry

Posted
Posted
I stand by the point I’m making.  But just because I’ve never seen anything like this doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Not going DT here. It does mean it’s a very rare anomaly and I’m not ready to concede that’s what’s gonna happen but rate anomalies do happen.  So just because there hasn’t been a case like this in our upper level records doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t happen.  The closer we get the more I have to accept the possibility but I’m holding out until tomorrow night.  If we don’t see any hints by the 0z Tuesday runs I’ll put up the white flat  
 

What are you expecting? Low off coast to move west and for entire system to shift nw?


.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...