eduggs

Those maps show two different waves due to timing differences. The first event, roughly slated for Thurs the 15th is already downstream in the Atlantic on the GDPS and the next wave is rolling in. It showed a progressively and positively tilted trof for wave 1. The GFS is wrapped up and cut off southeast of NY harbor so it is much less progressive aloft. Wave 2 is in the northern US and upper MS valley.

Wow at the 0z GFS aloft. 6z ECM-AI is starting to get a neg tilt look too. It's improved for several runs. But counter to that, the GFS-AI has ticked slightly worse for the same number runs. The GFS in particular shows potential to get a high-end trof alignment even without any southern stream energy rounding the base of the trof... Kind of intriguing. Noteworthy how little support there is for an event near the 15th. 0z GEFS offered a little support, but 6z has withdrew most of it and EPS and GEPS offer almost nothing. The AI models offer more support than the ensembles. This is an interesting test of their relative values. AIs vs ensembles.

I said your red tag confers a cloak of expertise that is not deserved. I.E., Bachelor's degree ≠ knowledge & competence. I stand by that. People should be judged based on the quality of their contributions, not a presumption of expertise.

I get that for sure. Fully agree. But if you only post positive trends it becomes a boy who cried wolf situation. And your analysis becomes unreliable. That's a meaningful critique.

I am responding to your post because I respect you as a poster. I want to limit commentary of a personal nature. I was very clear what I was critiquing with Brooklyn. It only gets murky when multiple people pile on with comments on other comments, and the original context gets lost. Brooklyn made a sarcastic response to someone else's post asking rhetorically if he should "not analyze models." I responded based on his well known propensity to post positive-trend animations that it would be helpful if his "analysis" included both positive and negative trends for a "more balanced" assessment. His response was again sarcastic and insulting. My critique of Brooklyn's style is that his always positive "analysis" regarding long-range charts is not well correlated to sensible weather outcomes. It is not difficult to recognize a favorable "look" on an long-range ensemble chart. ChatGPT does that quite well. There is little value in pointing out these features on 240hr charts. I think he should still be in LEARNING mode more than TEACHING mode. And eventually I think he could offer a lot more than one-sided cheerleading. I am entitled to this opinion, and people can agree or disagree with me if they like. Considering the prolific nature of his posts, Brooklyn should be able to handle legitimate critique. Maybe I'm misjudging him. If he proves me wrong and demonstrates a deeper repertoire, I will happily acknowledge it.

I don't want to "attack" anybody. I'm going to stop responding to specific posts that are personal in nature. I've made my point. Wishing deep snow for everybody.

I disagree. Prove me wrong. I've been posting on this board for a very long time. I've never read a solid forecast from you. Maybe you only provide them privately. You post the same thing on several sub forums. It's pretty much always the same thing.

Legitimate critique. Which you've never offered ever. We can have a competition if you want. Let's compare degrees, or professions, or have a forecasting competition.

People like his posts because he is a cheerleader for snow. And that's what people want to hear to make them feel better. But we should be better than that.

I've followed him for multiple years and he has a poor track record with medium and long range forecasting. I respect his enthusiasm a lot, but he is not yet a good forecaster. Brooklyn does not know what he does not know. He is young and inexperienced and has an unrelenting positive bias. It's relatively straight-forward to describe long-range ensemble anomaly charts in numerical terms and translate that to known pattern configurations. But that doesn't make you a good forecaster at all. Of the hundreds of times he has created an animation to illustrate a positive trend, exceedingly few have preceded a snowy outcome. If you knew me personally or bothered to read my posts, you would know that I am not a troll. I believe in facts and science, not BS and voodoo.

The ECM-AI is another model that looks worse than 6z. Even as early as 5 days out, it's clear aloft that Thurs. will be a miss. There is still time, but synoptic details and trends do matter at this time range.

The point remains. The closer a threat, the clearer we can see its flaws. E.g, ensemble means blend and hide shortwave details that appear in closer ranges. Choosing the 2nd showcase because we don't like the look of the 1st isn't always correct. Jan 15 at one time had a very favorable "look" too.

The 0z ECM at 168hr looks remarkable similar to 246hr. It easy to say now that we prefer the later threat, but when that threat gets nearer it might not look any better.

12z GFS is closest to an east coast snowstorm. It has a thin, high amplitude trof that rapidly takes on a negative tilt. This is at the extreme end of its multi-day ensemble spread. And it still misses well east. Then look at the CMC, ICON, and UK. All not close. GFS-AI and ECM are less dreadful but not great. Any reasonable look at this would have to conclude that an east coast snowstorm next week is a longshot at this juncture. I really really hope it changes for the better. But if we want to be rational, we should acknowledge the situation for what it is.

It wasn't a good 12z cycle because the modeled trof structure got more hostile for a big east coast event on every single model. And this is occurring during a time period where the run-to-run variability begins to significantly decrease. This is a difficult setup to get high QPF along the coast. There's a reason why so few individual ensemble members on the EPS, GEFS, or GEPS over the past few days have shown big hits. It could definitely happen next week - and I'm rooting as hard as anyone. But right now, statistically, we are more likely to be skunked than to get a major snowstorm.

Good luck with that.

We need a surface reflection in the southeast for the Thurs. event. Otherwise it's likely light rain/warm or an offshore low. Shortwave energy and low surface pressure in the Lakes region torches our lower levels. It's a symptom of a positively tilted trof collapsing on itself. We need more PVA in the south, not the Lakes. But we are moving away from that idea.

Disappointing 12z runs. Guidance starting to converge on a miss next week just as we approach a more reliable model time frame. Ensembles have consistently shown very little snow through the end of next week. Next weekend's potential event is still in fantasy land so hard to get excited about anything that far away.

ECM-AI a noticable improvement over previous runs for next week. Still a miss/fringe event but close enough to take seriously. The day 9 event is a hit though largely disregarded due to being in fantasy land.

Shame there's no surface reflection to key on in the Gulf and even a partial phase w/southern stream to initiate the trof maturing processes sooner. So we're left hoping for a helacious trof tilt and retrograding SLP.

It's a bummer we can't buy a Gulf Coast low. It will take tremendous vorticity advection and a negatively tilted trof to spawn a surface reflection close to the coast in this setup. We are likely stuck with the primary over the lakes and a weak secondary reflection well offshore until the wave gets past New England latitudes. Even a little bit of southern stream interaction with the ULL could generate the surface low we need to initiate the self amplifying processes of surface deepening and trof sharpening. Without that to key on, this looks like a long shot.

CMC not looking great either through 120hrs. Similar to GFS.

CMC a bit GFS-like so far through 120hr. Probably not going to look great either through 7 days.

The GFS is not good for next week. But the AI-GFS looks somewhat promising. And it continues a multi-run improving trend.

I'm not sure it means anything, but the 0z GFS-AI looks much better for next week than the GFS. It's also an improvement over 18z. The only time this year that the GFS consistently gave our area snowy runs was Dec 26. And it was wrong. Pretty much any other time it has differed from other guidance and didn't show a wintry outcome, it was right.