Maestrobjwa

I ain't used to seeing all these Baltimore jacks on the clown maps, lolol That was crazy!

7 minutes ago, yoda said:

There is a Day 9 event on the Euro tonight FWIW 

Oooh and it looks to be an STJer, doesn't it? 

10 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Yea that is killing places DC south. Even with some marginal gains from part 2 it’s a net loss. Unfortunately the primary is shearing out and weakening so the WAA is dying as it gets to us. Suppression ugh lol 

And yet that helped the CCB! Look What an inverse relationship

3 minutes ago, yoda said:

Yes... I mean as I have said before I would love 12".... but I just want to see that WSWarning issued... 4" is my benchmark

Wait isn't warning level 5"? Lol

1 minute ago, psuhoffman said:

Luckily the areas most likely to fail with WAA are most likely to win with the ccb so it mitigates that somewhat. 

Ah so there IS an inverse relationship? Lol (somewhat, at least?)

3 minutes ago, high risk said:

       except that if we fail on the CCB, 6-8" for areas north of DC probably isn't the default option.    3-5" seems more reasonable, and that could legitimately fall to 2-4" (see NAM nest).

Had that in the back of my brain as I was typing it...shoot. So we gonna need the CCB in order to achieve the recently elusive 5" warning level criteria? Oof

1 minute ago, ers-wxman1 said:

The large discrepancy between all the models is indicative of how uncertain things are. Pattern is fragile with a lot of moving parts, any one of them could be on to something as we do not know what the outcome will be. How ever the model initializes the moving parts is the eventual outcome. Complexity of a Miller B. From climo, they are usually not too favorable for the Mid Atlantic, more so the Northeast and we are seeing those trends. Fact is, the 500 trough and upper low are not all that impressive until later in the game. 

Well, in this case, at least we have the WAA...as long as nothing negative happens with that, many of us get out of this with warning criteria, hopefully. As much as we'd love to have double digits, if we gotta fail with the CCB, 6-8" isn't a bad consolation prize!

Just now, North Balti Zen said:

Not sure why anyone on the board from BWI north isn't smoking a cig and staring dreamily at that. Weird to see complaining/worry from anyone Route 32 and north after a run like that. 

That's close to max potential for us. Beyond, even. Not gonna happen, obviously, but fun to see a crazy run from one of the models this close in. 

I think part of it is because this whole setup and the various scenarios between the WAA and the CCB is kinda confusing (I mean it is for me, at least), so it's a little hard to know where your yard is at outside of the snowfall maps themselves.

1 minute ago, North Balti Zen said:

WAA too weak and not as robust on early totals and coastal develops too late so no backside. His worry is the fail worry for any of us in a MillerB.  Magnified where he is because backside in a Miller B is harder to catch out that way.  

 

Okay, I understand that...but what I'm saying is, does a weaker WAA mean an earlier coastal? Or are they not connected like that?

Just now, clskinsfan said:

Depends where you live. I certainly dont like the trend at 0Z for my area. But up where you are you should be pretty happy. I had pretty low expectations for my area anyways. We always get screwed in Miller B's. ALWAYS. I was hoping to snag 6 inches with the waa. But that has trended down tonight as well. 

Alright I'm confused here...we're seeing more favorable trends with the coastal/CCB, right? Now, is there some kind of inverse relationship with the WAA for areas like yours? (Apologies...just trying to visualize the scenarios here)

Just now, jaydreb said:

NE MD pummelled! 

Baltimore City pummeled, lol

25 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

12 hours ago that vort over New England was trending south. It has since relaxed some. But in a way suppressed is still an issue just not in an easily apparent way. But the fail option is to see the WAA wave suppressed...then have the coastal develop too late like the NAM. That ends up looking like the problem was a north trend because the coastal wraps snow back in to our north but in reality suppression initially helped that happen.  We need a storm to develop a healthy circulation and amp up quicker down here compared to the other northeast cities further up the coast.  

So...are you saying that we can benefit from even more relaxation of that vort over NE? So in a way it's like the opposite...suppression issues show up as "north" and not south? In other words, a further relaxation of that vort would produce a more of a "south"--in a good way--solution?

*head spinning*

4 hours ago, Bob Chill said:

Yea, I totally get that. As a father of 4 kids and a lot of friends over 50 years old, I worry myself when someone goes quiet. That was never my intention. Had I had known at any time that my absence was going to be this long I would have dropped a line. I was really glad when WxUSAF emailed me a few months ago honestly. I had already been thinking that I'm indirectly (or directly) causing people to have dark thoughts about my whereabouts because I'm the same exact way with other people. 

I too was wondering about your well being--but as long as you were okay, I totally respected whatever your reasons for not being on here. Thanks for your post of explanation--I think your reasoning is something we all need to keep in mind with this hobby: taking inventory of just how much time we are putting into this vs real life!

Just now, Eskimo Joe said:

Hope we don't see this creep north with each run though. IMO, by 12z tomorrow we'll probably know if we're looking at a low end warning event or if something special is coming down the pike. Having flashbacks from December.

We were just worrying about suppression 12 hrs ago...lol Like psu said, there is definitely a limit to how far north things get. That confluence is definitely there...but just weak enough to help, hopefully.

19 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

Hard to put much faith in the NAM past about 36 hours.

That's what I'm saying, lol Is it really worth parsing (pr panicking over) the details of it right now?

10 minutes ago, Bob Chill said:

Sup peeps. I'm new here. How much for Rockville?

BOB!!! Good to see ya sir!! I knew it!! I said the other day that you may have been waiting for a legit threat to be on the doorstep before you popped back in...and here you are!! Lol Welcome back!!

Question: Why are ensembles no longer useful once we get this close to an event?

Just now, Hypothetical 240 hour snow said:

I assume no one trusts the ICON thermals?

Not much, lol

Just now, jayyy said:

Also think part 2 is a) too uncertain and b) too far out for watches 

Agree

Just now, jayyy said:

Nice to see watches up along 95. Looks to only be through Sunday night too 

Sounds like they're treating this in two parts (which it basically is)

To help set the stage...the Winter Wind Etude by Chopin! 

5 minutes ago, DCTeacherman said:

It's already game on.  Pretty much every piece of guidance targets our region for accumulating snow, and most of them give us a warning level event.  We're now well inside of 100 hours.  Of course every piece of guidance could take a historically bad dump and we all end up smoking cirrus but that doesn't seem likely.  

I've always thought of this in two parts: WAA snowfall more certain, coastal a wild card. The only big bust scenario is to get nothing from either...and hopefully that is less likely.

Just now, North Balti Zen said:

you can click on it and see. 

I guess he meant WHY? Lol I would like to know as well

26 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I don't know but its obvious from the drastic shifts in guidance run to run and how closely those shifts correspond to the handling of that feature in New England, that its volatile and delicate.  The guidance is having a really hard time getting a handle on what that little vort is going to do and it has a great effect on our system.  

24 minutes ago, frd said:

Very true, one small feature can have dramatic effects.  

Oooof!!! That is maddening...one tiny feature with huge impacts either way! One aspect of tracking snow that will drive ya to drink if you're a drinker (thankfully I'm not, lol). Little tiny thing is like rolling the dice...the chaos element of this hobby that can't be seen until closer in. I certainly hope it can break in our favor this time!

5 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

There are 2 obvious camps emerging in the guidance... and it involves how they are handling the upstream feature in New England.  Those that are diving the vort there further southwest are suppressing the flow (NAM/Euro) and causing the trough to remain more positive with a more suppressed east solution WRT the coastal.  Then a camp that is less suppressive with that feature (GFS/PARA/ICON).    The GGEM/RGEM are kind of in between and so we see probably the ideal result for 95.  There is honestly no way to know for sure what is going to happen with that feature in New England, but it holds the key here IMO.  

So I'm wondering how long it'll be before we know what happens with that feature? Maybe not till gametime? Lol