eduggs

2 minutes ago, HVSnowLover said:

Of course it somehow finds a way to snow in Boston though 

Looks like an inverted trof and some easterly flow - ocean enhancement. 

We lost the RGEM. And no guarantees this is done trending.

0z RGEM - Surface low to Rochester with steady snows to Albany and Worchester. Light sleet and then rain into NENJ and Westchester. Quite a change from a day and a half ago. Yet another potential event in a long series of events trending away from us in the short term.

The 18z was a discouraging 5 day GFS run. The forecast QPF distribution is actually somewhat reminiscent of the snowfall distribution so far this year, at least north of the Mason Dixon line. The GFS might be too dry locally. Other guidance is more encouraging. But I don't think the GFS should be ignored.

1 hour ago, snowman19 said:

Yep and when you factor in the mid-level warm nose and boundary layer issues, weak lift profiles, marginal temps, those 10:1 ratio snowmaps are seriously flawed, this is a general 1-2 spot 3 inch snowfall event before p-type issues. Weak sauce for the metro area. But like you said, consider this a win and enjoy

If the GFS is close to right many areas may struggle to put down an inch. The axis of best snow looks to once again set up well north of most of us. It could be the CPA to BGM to ALB corridor again... or possibly closer to I-84. This is looking like a nowcast pray for a mesoscale banded feature situation. The regional synoptics are just not favorable for much more than occasional periods of light snow (which could turn to sleet or rain).

This event continues to look less impactful as we move forward in time.  Right now it looks like two periods of light snow.  First Tue morning and then possibly again overnight Tue. Some guidance shows semi-continuous spotty light mixed precip throughout the period, but the consensus seems to show a lull following the initial WAA push. The possible inverted trof feature, which could extend snow showers well into Wed, has shifted slightly north and east of the metro.

If temps stay below freezing, even 1" of snow will seem very wintry. 3" would seem like a pretty significant event. I would lean towards the low end. But we can hope for pockets or bands of heavier snow to make things a little more interesting.

Model soundings show dry about 700mb. Upper level divergence and lift are weak. Vorticity is weakening. There's just not a lot of modeled support for precipitation generating mechanisms east of CPA. Maybe things moisten up in the short term. Or maybe a few areas get lucky with isolated banding. Otherwise I think we are looking at a minor event.

The GFS and CMC are a lot closer together now after moving towards each other. A miss to the south or glancing blow seems most likely. But we're not so far off from a decent hit.

2 minutes ago, SnoSki14 said:

Gfs was clearly trending towards Euro/CMC but then it shredded the system apart. 

 

I agree. The shortwave responsible for the precipitation in the mid-Atlantic on the 26th is stronger and sharper this run. Precipitation gets further north into the Ohio Valley this run. A few more small changes like that in the mid and upper levels would produce a big change at the surface IMO.  

13 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

From Orh in SNE

Weeklies went wild with the -AO/NAO well into February. If that is correct, we’re either in for more torture or a lot of fun. Can’t punt with that look. (Well I guess you can but it’s like punting on 4th and 2 at your opponent 40 down by 7 with 4 min to go)

 

That's interesting. But personally I think, as hobbyists, we would be better off if weeklies did not exist. 

Year after year they prove to be as misleading as they are predictive.

19 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

What drives me crazy is a lot of Mets predicted a bad year for snowfall due to no blocking and poor Pacific. We had great blocking and it still didn't matter. I can't remember ever having great blocking in a Nina and not getting a decent winter. I have only seen super Nino's with blocking fail like late 90s. 

It's a crap shoot. Perfectly timed shortwaves can produce major storms in any "pattern". And a great "pattern" with a slight wrinkle in the setup can produce zilch. The large scale synoptic features certainly increase or decrease the likelihood of a good winter, but there is also a lot of luck (randomness) involved.

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

Here you go:

Thanks. That's helpful to visualize the relative likelihoods and typical ranges of each state during this upcoming time of year. It's hard to tell, but it looks like AO-/PNA+ is most common.

2 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

All days in January or all cases? The latter would lead to a noisier outcome on account of differing wave lengths.

All days during the January 21-31, 1950-2020 period.

17 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Below is a scatter diagram for New York City's daily snowfall of 4" or more during the January 21-31, 1950-2020 period based on the AO/PNA:

Nice plot. Is it also possible to plot the base rate - the AO/PNA scatter diagram for all days?

44 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

Not speaking in absolutes at all. And how good is the Niña February looking? About as good as the SSW bringing epic cold and snow here. Or “MJO phase 8!” Or the collapsed Niña by January. Lol I’m going to bring this post back up should we be deep in the throws of a canonical La Niña pattern next month 

I like Walt's approach. He doesn't really talk about weeklies, ENSO states, climate indices etc. And he generally does not look past about 10 days. He doesn't seem to talk a lot about "pattern". He just seems laser focused on tangible threats for the local area. Because for us, weather is a very local phenomenon. Apologies to him if I'm misrepresenting him. I just really prefer this approach to the long-range twitter crowd. It keeps hopes and expectations much more realistic.

12 hours ago, Rjay said:

To be fair I didn't really look into the details until now.  The low in Canada is just a vigorous northern stream s/w.  It's not like a storm developed over the plains and drove into the block.  So I guess it's plausible. 

 Btw, I'm legit laughing at breaking down a day 9/10 op run but it's always fun to learn I guess.  

Yes the models show an active northern stream, and it would be surprising if a southern stream low went north of the Lakes with the current flow regime over the Northern Hemisphere. The point I was trying to make is that if one of the primary models shows a southern stream low moving through the Lakes at day 9, it's probably a valid solution. It doesn't mean it's likely to happen, just that it could happen. No, lows don't drive into blocks. But lows form and move in concert with movement of upper level features. So in this hypothetical scenario, if there's a cutter low, the modeled "block" probably moved or disappeared.

22 minutes ago, Rjay said:

I'm usually not the type to say this but there's no way that's happening like that.   The prinary is not making it into Ontario. 

The v16 runs 3 systems through the Lakes over the next 10 days. The northern stream storm track looks to be positioned through southern Canada, so I don't see any reason why it couldn't play out like that. If the model shows a low pressure center in southern Ontario around the 26th, I think we should assume that it could happen. After all, the model physics is built to conform to the boundaries of what is physically possible.

It's completely valid to bet or argue against what the v16 is showing. If it's an outlier, we can point to that. But I don't think we can rule out certain outcomes because of our superior understanding of atmospheric physics. I think that is basically just guessing.

The ICON and NAVGEM also show precipitation making it into our area around the 22nd. Both also seem to have trended a little north. I don't know if the NAVGEM has any value for mid-range forecasting in our region, and I've been a little disappointed with the ICON this year particularly beyond 72hrs. But both models do show a less suppressive flow regime than the EC, GFS, CMC trio for late next week.

2 hours ago, wdrag said:

I like the conversation and my only thought with the 26th,  watch the 22nd.  For those who wish NIL for the 22nd.. root for the 12z/16 GEFS to back off a bit on qpf and for UKMET to not have developed some sort of short wave in the Ohio Valley to join with the northern tier ese driver.  We'll have to count on this being one of the UKMET'S spurious wrong off by 300 miles on  qpf axis operational cycles.  It does this kind of thing...am saving the UK for qpf for 12/22 night/23 AM for a future compare. 

I'll be away from the computer for awhile after 1P. 

Good catch regarding the 22nd.  The 12z GEFS were noticeably wetter, particularly into the Ohio Valley, than any recent runs. I'd like to see the individuals - there must be a few with a much stronger s/w and maybe some northern stream phasing. The mean even clips southern NJ with the 0.1" contour. The mean is in stark contrast to the operational GFS, ECM, and CMC runs, which completely squash the wave and its associated precipitation. If there is really some room here for a more northward solution (which the 12z GEFS questionably suggest), I'd like to see the GEFS hold strong for a few runs and then eventually the operationals show some movement.  Right now they are steadfast in their suppressed look. Otherwise we are stuck always looking deep into the future.

47 minutes ago, wishcast_hater said:

Winter is done. Those who called it in December were correct. Can’t break the back of the Pacific flow. 

I think we can still salvage some ice skating and fishing weather, even if things don't look snowy for the foreseeable future. Winter isn't all about snow.

And all it really takes is about an inch of powder to completely change the wintry feel.

And the CMC follows suit with a boring run. 

It's been exactly 1 month since we strung 2 good model cycles together in a row. A dreadful stretch. 

As usual the GFS is pouring cold water on the situation and stalling our momentum.

It feels like we're starting to get a little momentum going today. Let's keep it going tonight.

9 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

The survival rate is north of 99.7%

You possibly can still spread COVID after getting the vaccine.

You still need to wear a mask and distance indefinitely after getting the vaccine.

All of the above leads to a rather weak value proposition for many people. That’s even before you add in the conspiracy stuff and the fact it’s still emergency use. 

That could be a high estimate for survival. Getting an accurate estimate would depend on how causes of death are attributed and how many people have been infected. Without accurate and widespread serological testing for COVID antibodies, we won't really have a good estimate. Regardless, it is significantly deadlier than the flu and deadly enough to cause a little anxiety if you are infected.

Getting vaccinated is not just important for personal health. It's critical that we get case numbers much much lower. Obviously a high vaccination to infection ratio protects the heard. But it also significantly reduces the number of mutations that occur. Right now, with millions of cases worldwide, there is an increased chance of a mutation creating a "new strain" that is partially resistant to the current generation of vaccines. That would be devastating. 

3 minutes ago, HIPPYVALLEY said:

I think hard about it since I have anaphylactic reactions to wasp stings. 

Maybe consider getting your vaccine at or very close to a hospital just in case.  And obviously have the EpiPen ready. Fortunately severe anaphylactic reactions have been rare.