ORH_wxman

It’s a minor factor at best on a season to season basis. A baseline 2010s winter is like 6-7F colder than this.

The one silver lining about ratters is it helps us appreciate the good winters and storms more.

Ray can hold the phone up in the air

I think the only site that may have a realistic shot is ORH but that would come with a big asterisk since their ASOS is between 2-3F too warm so that’s a massive handicap baked in. But most sites should be in the top 5.

Yeah I see that now. Still shouldn’t be an N/A though.

Might have to be a sacrificial banning…impromptu GTG for it. We’ll have the entire bar chanting like in Temple of Doom before pressing the ban button.

I don’t think any of the missing years would have been lower for BDL or ORH. There were some ratters (esp ‘99-00) in there, but nothing threatening futility. 99-00 does have the latest measurable for several stations though. I think BOS is wrong in your rank and number needed for beating futility. They need 1.2 and you have it as “N/A”

I dont mind if people want to post that a good pattern on guidance will fail. But all I ask is use some meteorology/science to back up your reasoning and then an actual scientific debate can occur if we disagree. There’s an explicit reason we always explain in an event why our forecast might be different than model guidance shows (latent heat pumping up heights in gulf systems, mid-level magic/fronto not showing up well on QPF fields, models under-estimating low level CAD, etc)….the onus is on the person to explain why they differ from model guidance.

Everyone knows you aren’t rooting against snow. You are probably like a top 10 snow weenie on the entire site…you live for snow. We just know you deal with crappy patterns a lot by going reverse-psych. It’s not a bad hedge…you win a bet if you’re right, or you get to have some snow events to track if you’re wrong.

It’s on the reader if they are getting sucked into believing a 10 day SWFE will verify. I haven’t seen anyone saying it’s a lock to get good storms next week. This forum is supposed to be filled with seasoned hobbyists and Mets who should know better than to get sucked in. Now if a met starts forecasting huge snows and they don’t verify, that is one thing. But that hasn’t happened at all recently. The only time all winter I feel like most of us have honked was in December…and the longwave height pattern forecasted largely verified…I’ve posted the H5 composite for that 2-3 week period…we just happened to get skunked. That sucked, and it caused a lot of people to get snake bit. I get it. But since then, most of the decent patterns have been marginal at best or didn’t get inside 10 days. The very late January and early February colder pattern verified but again, we didn’t get much snow to show for it and it didn’t last very long. Almost everyone forecasted a lot of warmth for mid-February. That was pretty clear on LR guidance. This upcoming pattern is not as bad as earlier in the winter. It’s not Feb 2015 or Jan 2011 but it can produce. Will it? I dunno…we could get skunked again. Cutters are a definitive risk when you have the big west coast trough with little to no Atlantic blocking. But I am not going to lie to everyone here and say it’s the same pattern when it’s not. Are some features the same? Sure…like the WC troughing. But the Atlantic is different and the arctic is a bit different. That could be enough to matter…hence why we’re seeing more storms on these model runs than we have all winter. Do you think it’s a coincidence we’re seeing more snowy solutions? I don’t think it is. Will they verify? I have no idea.

It’s basically become this from a significant group of posters: 1. stop listening to Mets discuss any pattern shown on models. If they tell you something other than “it sucks”, it’s just wishcasting, etc 2. Any winter type weather on model guidance is fake. Either add 30 degrees to arctic shots or assume all snow events will be rain They should have kept accuwx forums open for these clowns. I’m getting close to going digital office space with the ban/suspend button.

Fwiw, 18z GFS is still weak sauce with that 2/19-20 wave so it’s prob not gonna look good for 2/23. Queue the whiners in 3-2-1….

How was any of that wishcasting?

e1 was run on Scooter's computer.....

Nasty cold tuck on the NAM for NE MA and SE NH. Congrats to dendrite on ZR.

Deep thoughts from QG "add 30 degrees to the cold shot" Omega.

Yeah about 3 days ago, we were looking more at Feb 25th and beyond, but then 2/23 started showing up as a legit SWFE on several runs....and the reason was that 2/20-21 system started amplifying more and creating the cold and confluence necessary to give us 2/23.....today, we took a step back on that, but I'd be very careful in assuming it's not going to pan out. A handful of posters will do that anyway, but I'm talking about the ones who actually want to parse the data honestly. Ukie/GGEM were very suppressed....while I don't believe them, it could be a sign that the Euro was a little too lax on today's run. Even a compromise would work. There's also continuing signs that the March -NAO could be real....not gonna believe it yet, but we haven't had any steps back on that evolution.

PAC actually improved on the EPS out beyond the first 8 days and that east based NAO seems to be slowly getting stronger. Most notable step back today for me on the EPS was the weaker 2/20 system which produces less confluence behind it....keeping it more zonal for 2/22-23. IF we're gonna sneak that 2/22-23 system in as a winter event, we'll need the prior one to set the table.

I fully expect the Pacific to be crap during this entire period...and probably trend worse with time as we get closer....which is why all the other variables are important. We want that wave break to be as sharp as possible from the 2/20 system

I didn't like the trend of weakening that 2/20-21 deal in flatter flow....it doesn't drive the boundary down as far south behind it....you can see it on the EPS too with the heights in SE Canada not as low after that system as the 00z run. We want the flow a bit more amped for that one like GGEM/Ukie. But that's what the 2/22-23 system depends on. Doesn't really affect the systems that potentially may come after that (like 2/25-2/28 timeframe) But if we're gonna try and steal that 2/22-23 deal next week, then we need that front runner wave to be pretty amped.

That shortwave that ejected from the southwest (the one in TX at 168 and off Carolians coast at 192) whiffs us....prob why we got a bunch of weak unorganized crap this run.

Function of both the winter (lack of snow events) and the current pattern (nothing imminent inside of 7 days). Also a function of more model data and more model runs.

13

We could end up with a 1980s sensible wx solution if things break wrong....cutters followed by arctic shots.

Problem is people get married to a solution or set of solutions that are really good....like we've seen several GFS runs produce multiple warning events and now when we get one that doesn't, it is deemed a failure before it ever got inside of 7 days....it's extremely hard to talk in layman's terms about probabilistic forecasting. Any threat from like 10 days out prob has something like a 1 in 5 shot at ever verifying (or even worse odds depending on the pattern).....but a good pattern will produce like 4 or 5 "threats" in the pipeline, so odds are that 1 or 2 of them will be hits by the time you get it closer. That's sort of what this pattern is showing....there will be a few shots....they all won't hit. Hopefully 1 or 2 of them do....but it's still possible none of them hit. There is a distinct cutter risk still....I think we've talked about it several times, but for some reason people act like we didn't mention it when an OP run (like today's 12z GFS) shows a cutter....they go "SEE!!! I TOLD YOU!!!! Its the same pattern!!!!1111111!2#3!!!!"