Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,729
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    kraken613
    Newest Member
    kraken613
    Joined

February 11-12; 12-13: Are they real??


stormtracker
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, 87storms said:

It's kind of impressive how the models are showing just about every way we can miss with every wave next week.  Too far south, too weak, too north.

The only one that is too far south is that weak frontrunner wave that happens to come along during a very short window of opportunity when the boundary is far enough south as a transient arctic high slides by to our north between waves...had something actually come along during that 24 hour window we could have got snow...but its such a short window.  Otherwise the whole period is what the H5 says it should be...waves going to our NW 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, psuhoffman said:

The only one that is too far south is that weak frontrunner wave that happens to come along during a very short window of opportunity when the boundary is far enough south as a transient arctic high slides by to our north between waves...had something actually come along during that 24 hour window we could have got snow...but its such a short window.  Otherwise the whole period is what the H5 says it should be...waves going to our NW 

I thought the 6Z gave DC like 5 inches?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, psuhoffman said:

The only one that is too far south is that weak frontrunner wave that happens to come along during a very short window of opportunity when the boundary is far enough south as a transient arctic high slides by to our north between waves...had something actually come along during that 24 hour window we could have got snow...but its such a short window.  Otherwise the whole period is what the H5 says it should be...waves going to our NW 

I don't think a front end snow from the 2nd wave is off the table, though...at least not for the northern tier.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

That isn't helping if we want to get some snow from the lead wave thingy, but the bigger issue if we wanted to actually get a legit snowstorm from this whole setup is the energy consolidating too much with the second wave.  I'm not even sure its accurate to call it that...its really just a bunch of weak waves along the boundary...and a few days ago models were keying on amplifying the whole thing sooner and not leaving any energy behind and that timed up the wave with our very short window of cold in an otherwise hostile period with the cold boundary to our NW.  Now they are waiting and amplifying a day later and...well no bueno.  The thing that confuses me in this whole mess isnt the result this is exactly what history says should happen, but why in gods name were all 4 ensembles (I saw the UK ensembles were nuts also) so damn sure out of all the possible variables and waves that it was going to amplify exactly the right time to hit us in such a short window we had for snow.  That's just weird to me, because there are so many ways this could have gone...so many small tweeks that send it in another tangent...yet all the guidance was like NO WE ARE SURE ITS THIS EXACT WAY and it was the only way that lead to big snow here...and obvsiously they were all wrong...I'd love to dig into what that was about.  Why they erroneously saw certainty in what I always saw as in inherently volatile unstable setup. 

I posted last night operationals are expected to be crappy regularly, but not the ensembles.  It's an epic fail of all the ensembles like I've never seen. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mitchnick said:

I posted last night operationals are expected to be crappy regularly, but not the ensembles.  It's an epic fail of all the ensembles like I've never seen. 

Of all the head fakes we've had the last several years, this was surely one of the worst. Ordinarily you'd expect model disagreement with a tenuous setup like this. But instead...all three seemingly got a concussion at the exact same time and just garbled out that solution. Sheesh...

  • yes 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, winter_warlock said:

Well that's good to hear

I mean, it's noticeably wetter for the EZF to RIC crew.  Accumulation lines move just a tiny hair north.  4-6 line was just south of Bmore...now looks like BMore is in it...if my geography is right.   

Basically it's a little better hold is what I'm trying to say, lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, psuhoffman said:

This could still be decent for DC south, we should probably check out and let them have their fun. 

Yeah, I don't like where this is going for the most part. The heights were worse this run looking at it now, but the GFS shield was a bit more expansive. I can see the GFS being the northern/juiciest outlier soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • WxUSAF locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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