All Activity

I also can't get out was counting on the ice driveway on a steep hill melting. May be the first time iced in since 1994

thats cool - which program you use to create that ? Also all those period marks I put in my most represents all the banter posts already in the new January 2026 thread - nonsense posts asking where forum member Allsnow is and then discussions back and forth about it and a couple other nonsense posts

Weekend rule, big ones sniffed early, and all that good stuff.

We will call it the small Alex.

No. You are in Delaware.

My birthday is the 9th. Can I get a storm named after me? Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro XL using Tapatalk

Are spending new years there? Sent from my SM-S731U using Tapatalk

Glad to hear, outstanding!

I have freezing drizzle

Now let’s unpack the jargon. Line-by-line translation “I think we need to consider the 6-7-8 a pattern arrival event” ➡️ Around January 6–8, a new large-scale weather pattern is expected to fully arrive. Think of this as: the atmosphere reorganizes itself rather than just day-to-day weather noise. “That's going to be an H.A. implication (I suspect…)” ➡️ “H.A.” = Height Anomaly (upper-air pressure departures from normal). He’s saying this pattern change will strongly affect upper-level pressure patterns, not just surface weather. “all ens systems agree in the rather abrupt guard change in the N. Pacific” ➡️ All ensemble models agree that there’s a sudden flip in the North Pacific pattern. “Guard change” = the atmosphere switches roles quickly (like defense → offense). This agreement is important — it means the signal is probably real. “The entire circulation medium out there essentially product reverses” ➡️ The whole North Pacific flow flips (ridges become troughs, troughs become ridges). “like on a temporal dime… Really fast… intra-weekly time scale.” ➡️ This happens very fast, within a few days, not weeks. Meteorologists don’t like this — fast changes break models. Why this matters for forecasts “that's likely to cause increased model performance problems” ➡️ Models struggle when the atmosphere changes this quickly. So details beyond a few days become unreliable. “sending such a violent signal downstream” ➡️ A big Pacific change ripples eastward across North America. Weather patterns behave like waves — a hard shove upstream creates chaos downstream. “the western N/A ridge will be in a period… correction vector… toward more amplitude” ➡️ As models adjust, they will likely correct toward a stronger western North America ridge. “More amplitude” = higher ridges deeper troughs bigger temperature swings more extreme outcomes “more than is currently in the cinemas” ➡️ Current model maps are too tame. Reality is likely bigger and sharper. “wave # number/distribution argument” ➡️ This is deep meteorology, but in plain English: The way large planetary waves are rearranging forces compensation elsewhere. If heights crash in one region, they must build in another. “supplant the regions N of HA with… height anomaly reversal” ➡️ When upper-level pressure drops hard in the North Pacific, physics demands that pressure builds somewhere else — in this case: ➡️ Western North America “there will physically necessitate height growth into western North America” ➡️ A strong western ridge is basically unavoidable. This is the key sentence. Why New England should care “More than 50%… closer to 80%… takes place in < 5 days” ➡️ This is an extremely rapid atmospheric reorganization. Which means: Models haven’t “caught up” yet Downstream details are suspect “I would be reeeally leery about any depictions down stream over eastern N/A” ➡️ Do not trust model specifics for the eastern U.S. yet. Snow vs rain, cold vs warm — all still very fluid. “more amplitude is actually favored” ➡️ When things settle, expect bigger extremes, not moderation. For New England, that usually means one of these, depending on timing: Sharper cold shots Stronger storms Higher snow potential or sharper cutters Bigger pattern swings overall “That all times around the 7th for some sort of emergence E of the nations midriff longitudes.” ➡️ Around January 7, the effects of this pattern change should start clearly showing up east of the Mississippi. That’s when things “pop.” The Big Picture (in normal human language) He’s essentially warning other mets: “Hey — the Pacific is about to flip hard and fast. That almost guarantees a stronger western ridge than models currently show. Because this happens so quickly, models will struggle and probably underplay how extreme things get downstream. Expect bigger swings over the eastern U.S. around Jan 7 — and don’t lock into specifics yet.” If you want, next we can: Apply this specifically to New England snow/cold odds Decode what this implies for storm track vs cold supply Or compare this to past winters with similar Pacific flips Before you respond in earnest, I'm half joking. Always read and appreciate your insight.

Its not just the below average temperatures which are/were good for December. But we had snow/lingering snow during the holidays with Christmas lights on which continued in little small burst. A quick small warm up than a cold blast to close out the year is fitting....

This could be a window for a 'bigger' coastal storm. Nice look up top and something brewing along the gulf coast.

I've been contemplating making an AI bot account to automatically post the tldr; versions of your posts. I wanted to test out of it would have the desired result and the initial attempt resulted in a text body even longer than yours. AI still has a ways to go it seems. The short version (TL;DR) He’s saying: A major, fast, and violent pattern change in the North Pacific around Jan 6–8 is likely. That change will probably force a stronger-than-expected ridge in western North America, which in turn means models are likely underestimating how amplified (extreme) the downstream pattern will be over the eastern U.S. around Jan 7. Bottom line: don’t trust the details yet — bigger swings are favored. Now let’s unpack the jargon. Line-by-line translation “I think we need to consider the 6-7-8 a pattern arrival event” ➡️ Around January 6–8, a new large-scale weather pattern is expected to fully arrive. Think of this as: the atmosphere reorganizes itself rather than just day-to-day weather noise. “That's going to be an H.A. implication (I suspect…)” ➡️ “H.A.” = Height Anomaly (upper-air pressure departures from normal). He’s saying this pattern change will strongly affect upper-level pressure patterns, not just surface weather. “all ens systems agree in the rather abrupt guard change in the N. Pacific” ➡️ All ensemble models agree that there’s a sudden flip in the North Pacific pattern. “Guard change” = the atmosphere switches roles quickly (like defense → offense). This agreement is important — it means the signal is probably real. “The entire circulation medium out there essentially product reverses” ➡️ The whole North Pacific flow flips (ridges become troughs, troughs become ridges). “like on a temporal dime… Really fast… intra-weekly time scale.” ➡️ This happens very fast, within a few days, not weeks. Meteorologists don’t like this — fast changes break models. Why this matters for forecasts “that's likely to cause increased model performance problems” ➡️ Models struggle when the atmosphere changes this quickly. So details beyond a few days become unreliable. “sending such a violent signal downstream” ➡️ A big Pacific change ripples eastward across North America. Weather patterns behave like waves — a hard shove upstream creates chaos downstream. “the western N/A ridge will be in a period… correction vector… toward more amplitude” ➡️ As models adjust, they will likely correct toward a stronger western North America ridge. “More amplitude” = higher ridges deeper troughs bigger temperature swings more extreme outcomes “more than is currently in the cinemas” ➡️ Current model maps are too tame. Reality is likely bigger and sharper. “wave # number/distribution argument” ➡️ This is deep meteorology, but in plain English: The way large planetary waves are rearranging forces compensation elsewhere. If heights crash in one region, they must build in another. “supplant the regions N of HA with… height anomaly reversal” ➡️ When upper-level pressure drops hard in the North Pacific, physics demands that pressure builds somewhere else — in this case: ➡️ Western North America “there will physically necessitate height growth into western North America” ➡️ A strong western ridge is basically unavoidable. This is the key sentence. Why New England should care “More than 50%… closer to 80%… takes place in < 5 days” ➡️ This is an extremely rapid atmospheric reorganization. Which means: Models haven’t “caught up” yet Downstream details are suspect “I would be reeeally leery about any depictions down stream over eastern N/A” ➡️ Do not trust model specifics for the eastern U.S. yet. Snow vs rain, cold vs warm — all still very fluid. “more amplitude is actually favored” ➡️ When things settle, expect bigger extremes, not moderation. For New England, that usually means one of these, depending on timing: Sharper cold shots Stronger storms Higher snow potential or sharper cutters Bigger pattern swings overall “That all times around the 7th for some sort of emergence E of the nations midriff longitudes.” ➡️ Around January 7, the effects of this pattern change should start clearly showing up east of the Mississippi. That’s when things “pop.” The Big Picture (in normal human language) He’s essentially warning other mets: “Hey — the Pacific is about to flip hard and fast. That almost guarantees a stronger western ridge than models currently show. Because this happens so quickly, models will struggle and probably underplay how extreme things get downstream. Expect bigger swings over the eastern U.S. around Jan 7 — and don’t lock into specifics yet.” If you want, next we can: Apply this specifically to New England snow/cold odds Decode what this implies for storm track vs cold supply Or compare this to past winters with similar Pacific flips

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. It’s snowing pretty hard despite what the radar is showing. Models always showed a less intense but consistent and prolonged moderate snowband pivoting over central Minnesota which is where the majority of our accumulation is supposed to come from. The initial heavy band was never supposed to last long or add up to much. Radar looks about what I would expect. .

I've been tracking the potential lake event on models. The euro just nuked my target area with 4" QPF after the torch passes tomorrow. The local guy i follow on Facebook is thinking 4-5' by the weekend. I'm getting pumped.

Agree

Winds picking up quick. Should continue to increase from here over the next few hours. .

That sounds like fun, but I have other obligations that week. Enjoy!!

I think he meant to say, "there is no OVERstating..."

Whiplash

Vortex in SE Canada at that point, and goes well with the forecasting of the elongation of the PV near early Jan. Hopefully not as squashed as time moves on. We failed last year, or the year before in a similar fashion. Here is a 3 D vortex image, a bit outdated, but shows it pressing Southward.

Not too bad right now. I’ll let you know come this evening around sunset. .

MSP radar doesn't look too good to me. Hope it fills in and enhances in short order.