EastonSN+

Perhaps this one could come a little North for a light event.

As long as it does not result in a trough to Baja that's a decent look.

I mentioned this last year, the waters in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Africa are rising quickly which would mean higher amplitude waves in phases 1 and 2. This will help offset the warm Waters in Indonesia which are contributing to the higher amplitude waves in the warm phases.

This will indeed be an interesting winter. Per the Middle Atlantic forum the PDO is rising fast, however, a negative EPO does not benefit us if we have a deep RNA. In rare cases like 95/96 we have a La Nina which never fully results in a deep RNA, same rang true for 2010 2011. Given that March can be snowy in a La Nina due to the shorter wavelengths, perhaps we could bridge the gap with a shorter RNA period.

Great post as always thanks for this. Phase eight looks a little weak however looks like a stronger wave is going into one and two and I believe phase 2 is still cold and active for our area in January. I did reference this last year where the warm water anomalies, while amplifying the waves in the warm phases, are also amplifying phases one and two which are cold. Perhaps the retracted jet which was posted above from a Twitter post is associated with the stronger phases one and two.

Yeah we go from worrying about a trough out west to a trough too far East.

Unfortunately our last good period the trough was positioned a bit too far east to allow for any East Coast development hopefully this next period the trough access could be slightly further west and allow for more of a Southeast ridge to allow for coastal development we shall see.

Agreed historically big snow is rare in our area outside of the two periods I referenced in a post above. On a side note two of the perceived good looking periods we had in the past we're not really great looks given that we had a trough to Baja which no amount of blocking could ever overcome. The modeling at medium and long range failed to link the southeast ridge to the nao which should have been picked up giving the depth of the trough out west and the position of the trough.

Agreed 100%. The periods of 1955 through 1969 and the period of 2000 through 2018 skewed our viewpoint of what average snowfall is and how many KU events actually occur. Perhaps I have the benefit of living through the 80s and '90s where there was a total of three above average snowfall Winters in New York City. Also regarding KU events I only remember 1983 1993 1995 and 1996 4ku events. 1970 through 1999 had a grand total of five above average snowfall Winters in New York City.

This is entertainment at this range however I would be more than happy with a light to moderate event like this one on the ECM

On the topic of suppression what the GFS is showing is the risk. Conscious that this is just one op run however just utilizing to show a point.

I referenced it at some point in the past however the look does seem to favor areas south of us, we need more of a Southeast ridge or a sharper PNA or east-based EPO to allow a storm to head north. That being said I would rather take the look that I'm seeing across the entire model suite as opposed to a full continent torch or a trough to Baja. This is a case where a storm ejecting East followed by a dip in the PNA could allow the storm to override the cold air.

Did we have a break in the fast jet for the 2021-2022 winter, or was there another factor that counteracted it? That winter had a KU event and a heavy snow event in December and was above average snowfall region wide. If there was another Factor counteracting it that may be what we need to look out for incoming periods until the jet finally starts to slow down at some point in the future.

I would sign up for 2009 in a heartbeat that was a really good January up here. The winter as a whole ended up with 42 inches in my hometown then of Norwalk.

The gefs has moved a little closer to the eps and toward the end of the run looks classic. For what it's worth the geps also looks a little better. Let's see if the EPS old serve.

He is taking the EPS verbatim which if correct is good for us.

The EPS does not have the troughing the same way the gefs does as the mjo is weak in phase 8 and the gefs while it is moderate on the eps. We have seen a positive PNA so far this winter so hopefully we get a positive PNA this time or at least a more east-based negative EPO. However I do agree if the gefs is correct then the snowfall opportunities will not be as great as with the EPS is currently showing.

Yeah he's just pointing out what the EPS is showing which is a very good look if it goes away that's more an issue with the modeling.

The end of the gefs run. Taking a step back from a trough in the West that blocking looks really good. Looks like the reason for the difference between the EPs and a gefs out west is the fact that the mjo is extremely weak in phase 8 on the gefs however is moderately strong on the eps.

Ended up with 0.5 in today. 1 inch on the year in Easton Connecticut.

Ended up with 0.5 in in Easton. 1 inch for the year.

Thanks for this. Out of curiosity why did 16 17 have a wall to wall winter in a La Nina. We had the thunder snow event in February that year and a major snowstorm in March. This also happened to a much greater extent in 95 96 and 2010 2011 (I know some think winter ended after January however we had two more snow events in February and March that year). Are there any signs to look out for that would indicate a winter like 16 and 17 in advance. Forky did mention earlier a weakening La Nina perhaps that's what happened in 1617 as well. Finally in the middle of Atlantic forum they are tracking the PDO and has stated that is rapidly rising and perhaps to go positive perhaps that happened in 1617 as well.

All three ensemble suites show a trough in the East Coast. Eps looks great. Gefs takes longer to get to a better look and has a much broader trough. G e p s looks good as well more in the middle however closer to the eps.