eduggs

That feels true in memory. I know all models occasionally do that and who knows if the CMC is more guilty. But I sure wish the CMC was on our side instead of the GFS.

Use ensemble means with caution. There are clusters broadly representing the extremes depicted in the recent op global runs. Clearly there is heightened sensitivity to a few key features that could shift this outcome significantly. Averaging these extreme camps creates a muted average unlikely to portend the final outcome.

Ooof, the CMC looks ugly again.

Heavy snow to mix to rain possibly back to snow on the GFS. Weaker trof keeps things wintry. Gonna be hard to avoid rain with a trof axis so far west.

Less explosive development. Weaker, less sharp trof. That could be good for us if we don't want rain and wind.

Well the follow up wave that ultimately carves out the big trof is noticably weaker as it moves through the Pac NW/intermountain west. That seems slightly good for us. The evolution is also delayed. But the ULL over Ontario looks likely less favorably positioned.

The 0z RGEM has lower heights over the Lakes at the end of its run. This looks improved over 18z and the 12z GEM. I expect the 0z Canadian to be at least a slightly less extreme cutter compared to 12z.

ICON has the upper level low feature in Ontario at day 5, just a bit too far north. Previous model runs that had east coast snowstorms had a strong antecedent ULL in this region. EC was really flat with this feature, and the CMC actually had a ridge. A stout ULL would force any follow up wave to divert south and possibly delay the negative tilting.

That's how it looks to me too. And the key features are only 4-5 days out from being in their critical locations, so there's not a ton of time for changes. But things could still evolve differently, so we'll all probably continue to track.

The blocking isn't helping and it won't last forever anyway. I don't believe in "patterns," but I will say from a snow perspective this early winter has been bleak outside the NW hills.

Nope, it's locked in now. Expect the GFS to trend further west and warmer. Could be severe storms.

Based on 144hr, it looks like the UK is in the CMC/ICON camp with high heights in Ontario mid-week and the follow up ULL moving eastward towards the lakes instead of diving south through the US. The 12z EC and 0z GFS are in the other camp, although both have a significant portion of ensemble members in the other camp.

The ICON looks much closer to the CMC than the GFS. Both lack the low heights in Ontario at day 5.5 that forces the follow-up wave underneath. I'd rather have any other model on our side right now than the GFS.

The 0z CMC scenario is my fear. The upper level low does not dive far enough south initially, once again taking a path through the Lakes as the past several have done. So we don't lock in the cold air and the slp is late developing. This evolution also matches this afternoon's GEFS and GEPS ensembles.

I think Albany is closer to 50" on that map. But they did have some lean years during that period. They missed out on some of the big ones that impacted the City and coastal region. I know the Saugerties - New Paltz area gets brutally downsloped. Still, those totals look sad.

If we get this look within 3 days, we can talk about a possible major snowstorm up and down the east coast. No complaints from me on this run.

The offshore low shunts the baroclinic environment offshore initially, but it's hard to complain too much with that upper level setup 7 days out. There's cold air available and relatively high-end potential. Now we roll the dice and see what happens.

Judging from h5 at day 6.5, we're still very much in the game. Potent and amplifying trof incoming.

I've lived near Albany. It's the warmest, wettest location around that region. Downsloping from multiple directions. But yes, assuming there is cold/dry air to the north of our region, Albany's latitude can help a lot. But it's a terrible snow location with a stale airmass. With an easterly flow, you want to be 10 miles west of Albany along the Helderberg escarpment.

The first wave stays north up in Canada, which helps to buckle and amplify the follow up wave. The evolution happens pretty late next week.

I don't think it's out far enough yet. At least not on the sites that I have access to.

That by itself isn't so unusual. But what are the conditions in the high terrain east of the Hudson? What's a little unusual is that so far there's more snow at 800ft in NNJ than at 1200ft in eastern Dutchess and Columbia counties.

The recurring problem we've seen this early winter, in a simplistic sense, is that no shortwaves are diving far enough south. Heights are too high, the baroclinic zone is too far north, and everything moves through the Great Lakes region. I'm worried about the same thing happening for the next threat. The GEFS and GEPS have the upper level low swinging through Ontario late next week. That's far from ideal. The EC is much better, but as the clusters show, there are several members that show a similar northerly evolution. Obviously at this time frame, the ensemble means are averages of widely varying solutions. But if the upper level low doesn't dive pretty far south through the central US, we are going to have many of the same problems that we've had thus far.

That sucks. If I lived there those gorgeous snow maps would have suckered me in. There have been very few pure snow reports from east of the river this evening. CMC and to a lesser extent EC were on the right track here. I am slightly curious about the conditions above 1000ft in Putnam and eastern Dutchess.

NYC: 7" EWR: 13" MMU: 23" ISP: 29" SWF: 32"