Moderately Unstable

If that trend keeps up they'll need to extend the warnings....

Yes. No 24k NAM. 12k and 3k are both on Pivotal.

I've been trying to come up with a way to express how excited the NAM caving makes me but I literally can't. Agghhh. Looks like it finally clears philly early Wed am. Weather channel uped philly estimate to 12-18" storm total. Muahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

I really like the RPM. Weather channel's parent company's in-house model. 12km res goes to 72 hrs. 4km res goes to 51hrs these days. Almost every broadcast met you know uses it. Do the NE forum members post the maps or no? As of now, it is trending more euro/rgem than nam/hrrr. I think the euro has a good handle on things overall. It does well with headline type miller B's; NAM facing retirement and is known for kooky solutions to a level that "being NAMed" is common meteo vernacular. Looks like the NAM is coming around finally. Wrt the last euro, all I want to say is, that European model looks very plowable tonight .

Sorry guys, I wrote that on my phone. I promise I know better haha. Thanks Jim for formatting.

PSA: A few folks here yesterday made statements like..."under 6-8 WILL NOT happen". Remember not to predict ultimatiums before an event occurs. Weather gods don't like hubris. Mt. Holly is not going w/NAM. If they were, they'd have to majorly cut those totals particularly around Philly. They're just not going into rgem land. They seem to be splitting the difference. Not very weenieish, does seem logical though. The models all show good qpf in Philly and surroundings. The differential in the snow amounts is mostly differences in how much warm nose pushes in and hence how much mixing occurs. My exp is that given the cold air that's been in place, and the high precip rates expected due to the rapid deepening low, you'll get the typical evap cooling effect where the heavy rates keep the column at freezing so long as precip is sufficiently robust. The lull period tnght tmrw am is where the risk is as has been stated. Heaviest rates, 1-2" hr are really only progged for a short time on any of the models, and it's right after precip ramps back up. Some models show that period being sleet for many of us; that cuts the totals. Others keep it all snow. That will be the difference for the corridor though btwn a 6-8-12-15 storm total. Remember that if we got 2" thundersnow type rates for several hours, we'd be talking plural feet in the corridor, not 10ish inches over 3 days. *Most* of this event is clearly NOT heavy snow. So, don't panic if things don't work out exactly as the models project. Expect that they won't be perfect. One thing they all show is that this system is with us for awhile and should produce some snow most of that time. By Tuesday pm, we will probably add up to what this forum expects, but, expect a lot of panic and concern from people here tonight and Monday, beyond the lull..just bc I think people are expecting a major 2"+ hr rate situation and again, outside a few hour window, this is a low and slow burn. I also think based on what I'm seeing live that the models may be underdoing the overrunning totals a bit, and that may also help us get to expected totals. We're going to be fine, folks.

The thing worth considering here, is that, unlike the *December* storm, this storm is sticking around a long time. Yeah, the event starts within 24 hours. But the actual ramp up where we expect to see the transfer and thus, the bigger totals, isn't until Monday (e.g. 36 hours ish out). I think we could safely predict right now what happens tomorrow. The overrunning precip comes through, gives a widespread several inches, semantics dependent on mesoscale details. Hence, we have 12 hours before we'll be at the point where, in December, the models started making everyone cry (they began that trend sooner though) wrt the actual Nor' Easter component to this storm. I think 10-14" is what I'm going with for the city. Someone in the LV will see north of 2". I don't necessarily buy the pie in the sky 3-4 feet. Mixing is a concern for the corridor, but the transfer should probably limit duration. I think the above comments were right vis a vis the NWS was pointing it out as something to be aware of and consider, not buying or not buying it. It's one of those things to keep an eye on. If that signal sticks around and it starts showing in other models, pay attention. If not, just a good-to-know. Wishing all in this forum good luck the next few days, if you're chasing, staying home etc. May the snow totals be forever in your favor.

Does anyone have a link to a website that shows a high temperature verification map for today? Ideally something that compares actuals to the statistical and dynamical guidance?

Not necessarily. The high res and proprietary guidance today has been a bit all over the map. Several typically good short range models are progging the axis being more along the apps with PHL at 6-10. Of course several globals clearly show more. Personally, I'd have called 8-12" for the moment in CC PHL, because it's less jarring for the public to shift up or down a peg from that range. No point in forecasting max possible amount just yet, sets up a lot of room to bust. Too many things have to go right for 12-18. We can't miss the overrunning, fgen needs to be good, transfer of low has to be good. 6-10 is nothing to sneeze at, and model variability is the reason it is useful to wait to go full tilt until I'd say the 00z runs tonight. This IS philly after all. If all the models are honking together then you raise the bar. 12-18 is your best case for phl, 5-8 is your worst case....8-12 is a safe middle. They say fortune favors the bold, perhaps that explains my misfortune. I am genuinely curious right now to see if winds and visibilities end up hitting blizzard criteria somewhere in the mt holly forecast area. Seems possible. Edit: I like the epawa map.

Mt holly has hoisted initial warnings.

1) Yes Mt Holly write up was good. 2) I'm refraining from posting right now, or getting excited, as I've learned the very hard way (as have all of you) that we've been burned SO MANY TIMES on winter setups. There's an excellent article the inquirer put out earlier basically making the point by talking about the improvements in modeling coupled with myriad high profile busts over the last dozen years. Moral of the story is, Philly weather is hard to predict wrt snow. Complex almost always. You've got an elevation change, variable coastal effects (sometimes intrastorm), etc. I'll try to make a call tomorrow night just to be part of the bandwagon bc yolo. The things I DO like about this setup are its long duration, the favorable teleconnection pattern, the existing cold air "cold air is the bully"--> meteo refrain referring to cold air being more dense, thus if you want to bet on something, bet that cold air sticks around longer bc it takes longer to dislodge. The long duration aspect means that if one element underwhelms, say, overrunning, or fgen, there's 2 other components that can make up for it. Much better than a quick hitter that is progged with 2" rates. If you miss an hour, or 2, of those 2" rates bc the low tracks differently than you expect or the column takes longer to saturate than you think, you're sol. With a storm like this, it's kinda lumbering and that makes it harder to bust. The PG is impressive--will be interesting to see what type of warning (*ahem*, if a warning) is hoisted. That all said, this is Philly, my above axiom stands vis a vis the models' ability to prognosticate a major event that doesn't happen. A lot of historical data points to this being a good setup. Air travel is still down though (# flights): weather data from aircraft are fed into the models as part of their initialization. I also tangentially think that climate change may be (possibly) hurting model performance. Your basic assumptions have to change a bit when the energy budget shifts (e.g. less energy coming through atmos can get back out to space). I'm sure modelers are factoring that in, but, cursorily, I have noticed a trend for models to be more finicky the last several years than in the past, and I do wonder if climatic effects are partially responsible. Anyway, looks promising, but I'm not gonna start letting model variability and run to run updates consume my life till tmrw night.

^^agreed. It is nice to look at. The bulk of the guidance is not on the GFS amounts train, though I don't think it's out to lunch per se. I think a lot of the gfs's progging relates to thinking super heavy precip rates will overcome all else. For Philly CC, my gut instinct at this point for a first call is, 5-8 if we see a snow-mix/rain-snow, 8-12 if mostly snow, 12-16 if phl stays mostly snow, and everything aligns just right. I'm a bit concerned about the dry slot timing on the backend. That's screwed the region in the past and is showing more of an issue in recent runs. Thus if I had to choose a single range, I'd go 8-12, with the (*) that more is possible.

Double check to make sure it's actually accumulating (if it is, that is indeed interesting). For example, tomorrow, the NAM says 2-3" of snow could fall (snow accumulation graphic), but precisely 0 of that will accumulate (change in snow depth graphic). Also, remember that unless otherwise noted, rain:snow ratios are 1:10...since temps here are so close to freezing, ratios won't be 1:10, they'll be 1:7, 1:8...which is why Kuchara totals are lower than the non-kuch totals. Machine learning models are great, sometimes they don't pick up on big changes quick enough.

Ok, euro brings me back from the brink lol. I've been writing up an analysis (see below), but I'm taking a break now to go exercise, so this is incomplete. Also, I was mainly writing this for myself so it may be full of errors. On the off chance I say something helpful, posting below. /////////// Current Analysis (please take with giant grain of salt): Setup: Miller B type-ish cyclogenesis under a negative NAO, weak La Nina, PNA approximately neutral, may be trending slightly negative. A low currently over the eastern pacific ocean will traverse and be disrupted by the rockies, progressing into a trough over the southern and central US. Canadian high pressure builds over Quebec. Cold air damming occurs as cP air mass moves SE...Canadian high pushes and traps cold air against the apps. Trough/sw amplifies and move NE along the NE coast becoming a closed sfc low. Recent trends focus more on a developing low east of FL to phase with the low ejecting from the rockies which is more akin to miller A than B. Vertical Velocity Position and causes: S of Philadelphia primarily...NAM disagrees and thinks omega is higher further N, reasoning: 700mb low position (eh), 850 mb position, jet streak (UL divergence), LL convergence. Strength of WAA/CAA f(wind S, wind Dir, T gradient)....solenoids: ##todo Positioning of the low/rain-snow line: SE along a line between 20 miles SSE of Philadelphia to 5 NNW of Philadelphia depending on model run specifics. All runs indicate sfc temps sub freezing due to either precip rate or myriad other factors. Precip components: Overrunning Y/N--> Yes Central Y/N--->Yes Wrap-Around Y/N---> Unclear. Dry slot vs deformation banding. Model comparison: (to finish) GFS--> 12z Sun run weaker. At 06z Thurs, has the low up by 6mb vs previous run, and slower. Compared to runs over the past day, the 06z run low position appears to be an outlier, most of the runs keep the storm closer to the coast, and differ with strength and direction from there. The decrease in QPF seen in the 12z run (and thus, total potential snow) appears to be a function of less 6 hr QPF forecast at 00z Thursday vs earlier runs, which is itself due to the low being further south of the Philly metro at that timestamp. Despite these changes, the rain/snow line has been quite consistent since the 00z run. 00z, 06z, and 12z, all depict a virtually identical rain/snow line at 00z Thurs. This is not as true at 06z Thurs--earlier runs, including 00z Sun, had heavy snow reach further into NJ due to extreme dynamical cooling and FGEN effects, however, the 12z and 06z run are in fair agreement with a rain/snow line towards coastal NJ and DE. ECMWF-->Has the best positioning right now of the 700mb low in terms of maximal snow potential. 06z Euro brings storm further north than 00z, poss ptype implications. UKMET--> 00z run splits the difference in terms of southeast ridging between the 12z GFS solution and the 06z ECMWF solution with respect to possible temps during the storm's projected peak (around 21z Wed-09z Thurs). 12z run warmer, lowers snowfall totals in PHL from 13 to 8 or sig less (to finish). NAM--> Brings the low further north and closer to DE at 84 hours vs other models due to positioning the Canadian high further NE. Has the closest SFC low approach to Philly of any current or recent model run across models. As a result, projects much more of a mix than other models--the 12z run would bring a mostly freezing rain type event to the Philly metro, with up to 0.5" of freezing rain forecast to potentially fall by 00z Thurs. Pulling up a sounding, this is due to WAA between 850 and 700mb. In fact, the NAM actually suggests that the surface temps will be colder than other models suggest--but is so aggressive with the mid-level conveyor belt WAA that it makes much of the event FZRA. I agree with earlier analysis suggesting the NAM is too amplified. EPS vs GEFS--> EPS slightly closer to coast. Edit: NAM time stamp.

Haha, well, I DID go to school for Meteo, and hold a degree, and STILL don't work in the field. You'll encounter that a lot--there are way more METs than jobs. If you don't have a masters, or experience, don't expect to get into the NWS or similar (it isn't like it was in the 80s). Many other met jobs in the private sector don't involve forecasting and/or pay very poorly--even some in television. The fact is, computer tech has gotten REALLY GOOD, and you only need so many people to make the models, run the models, and forecasters to interpret the models for a given region and specific niche. Whether you're talking airlines, trading markets, forecasting companies, television, government--it is VERY competitive. I went to PSU--they have a very large program. Every year, they graduate many dozens of METs, just at PSU, every single year. There are lots of MET schools, multiply that out, then consider that a tv station may have 3-6 mets, NWS office may have 10-20. To reiterate--many mets don't work as mets. It is a very fun field, and when it WAS more of a niche major, getting a B.S was sufficient to get a good job either at the NWS or private sector. That is no longer the case. And this is not even accounting for the importance of connections--who you know matters as much as, and often more, than what you know. That's true in most competitive skilled fields, and meteo is no exception. When I was in HS, I volunteered at the Franklin Institute. My supervisor was a met grad--he didn't like talking about meteo though (I got the sense he was a bit upset at not working in meteo). Little did I realize then that that's the norm rather than exception. I've also run into many mets since graduating, who do not work in MET. So, to get around all of that I tried to go to grad school, changed my focus from forecasting to climate change, etc etc. But, I wasn't as motivated because even though climate science is very important, I got into weather bc of severe weather forecasting/winter storms etc. So, I didn't do well there, had some issues of my own, and left. Over several years, I reoriented myself with completely unrelated work, while transitioning to pursuing a masters in comp sci. I miss meteo immensely, particularly doing research, and to this day, I wish I'd worked harder during my grad school stint--it is perhaps the single greatest regret of my life. But the fact remains that hobbies and passions have to intersect with job demand and money, to actually be worth it. I could re-apply to grad schools, retake the GRE, etc. But, I already got into another masters program in comp sci, and it makes more sense for me at this point. Therefore, when considering whether to go to school for meteo, or go back to school for meteo, your real first question should be, if you do that, what exactly do you want to do with it when you graduate? After you answer that, do some research and find out how many actual jobs entail that requirement. Perhaps you'll be in the top 20% of your class, and be part of the group that then does not want to go to grad school, but if not, you will have competition. You will also face competition from students who may attend other schools (which may hold higher reputations), from current mets that hold degrees and want to work in the field and have taken other jobs to hold them over while they look, etc. And some employers would indeed ask and scrutinize why you did not initially pursue meteo, why "now", even in holding a degree. Others would not. Also, as both a business manager, and a card carrying meteorologist, I can also tell you...in every profession, meteo included, we don't hire people solely based on their credentials. We look at your whole resume, your cover letter, we talk to you to see how you could fit in with our team, see what you actually know, how long you'd probably want to stay, and get a sense of your personality (aka, an interview). One thing you may be able to do NOW, is find a part time volunteer or paid job working with one of myriad online forecasting groups (see facebook, not a joke). Experience matters. Now, the separate question to address is, would a school even accept you. On this matter, I have a very strong, and probably relatively unique opinion. If you go through the analysis of benefits and drawbacks, as I mentioned above, and determine meteo is a good choice for you--you should NOT let fear of being rejected stop you from trying. Apply. Reach out to the department head and ask them. YES, some schools WILL look negatively on trying to return to school after trying before and will reject you. Try anyway. The fact is, you don't need everyone to be on your team--you need one person/group/school to be on your team, that's it. When I read posts where people ask "can I do xyz if abc", then see posters explaining all the reasons why the answer is "no", it makes me cringe. Don't dissuade people from trying something they're passionate about if it's even remotely reasonable for them to do well with it. Fact is, if you don't give something a shot, you won't actually KNOW what said people will do. Humans are not machines--if you have a good essay that explains your background, why you want to do what you're applying for, links up your existing experience with how this new position/education could help you...that gets factored in. So do good letters of rec. Sometimes I think people get so hung up on wanting to go to, say, MIT, that they don't realize that the actual school, while important, is not as important as people think. Be judicious in explaining your past failures. I would personally, if I were you, emphasize how your work experience has allowed you to grow intellectually, become more mature, and improved your work ethic (be specific and use examples). Lot's of college kids do dumb things--you made mistakes, you fixed them. Include a couple tidbits that highlight your existing meteorological knowledge and passions--try to specifically explain what in meteo makes you excited and get into the weeds a touch to show you know more than the first two sentences of a wikipedia article on the topic. Explain why you'd do well now--really think about this since it's important you give a good reason, and you yourself believe that reason. If you do explain your past switchover, it is reasonable to say that you were immature, didn't fully know what you wanted to do (understandable at that age), and made some mistakes, including not continuing with meteo. Some people will give you a second chance, if you show them clearly why they should do so. You may also wish to consider applying to a graduate meteo program instead of ugrad. You've done ugrad, you have a degree in a semi-related field, you may be able to go straight to that level. Depends on how much math/physics etc you've done and what you still remember now. To sum this whole paragraph up though: If you decide, based on whatever reasoning, that you want to go to school for meteo, apply, reach out, and try. Do not sit here on the internet waiting for someone to give you a green light or strike you down. I really truly wish I could go back in time and tell my younger self that. If you try, and get rejected, find out why, find out how to fix it, and if you can't, be proud of yourself for making the effort. However--I really cannot stress this enough: Meteo is very fun; I still enjoy even the mathematical parts (I'm reviewing an old lecture about diagnosing vertical velocities using horizontal convergence and divergence right now). But, if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't be worried about my ability to get into school, I'd be worried about my ability to get a job after school. Not because of your age, just because, as I said--it's a very VERY competitive field, so if you've got something going that's good (e.g a good job with good benefits), be careful about throwing that away. The entire job market now is competitive--I've had masters graduates apply for roles at my company (in roles that required a HS diploma). Consider finding something that's MORE enjoyable in the field you're in, or one in which you have connections and some experience and existing knowledge. Going to school for 3-4 years to gain knowledge is fun, but don't throw away something good because you want something better. You don't have to work at a job that leaves you unfulfilled, but try to find ways to do meteo in a more limited way first before you jump the boat. Hope this helps.

Lol, I'll do it later today and I'll accept the scorn I rightly deserve if it blows up in my face. Right now however I'm looking at the 700mb VV progs and trying to write down what's causing it. Also need to figure out the 700mb low track and the why there. I feel that will give me a better handle on the places the models disagree and which option makes more sense in this setup--negative NAO, trending more negative, not great PNA. To be clear, the physics here will support a decent snowstorm--and some portions of the area should see heavy snow, hence, a dedicated thread makes sense (this is an Obs thread). This will, as well put in an earlier NWS AFD, be a battle between precipitation rate (and thus dynamic cooling), and warm air advection. Right now, the models are pretty confident that precip rate wins--they suggest as much as 12"+ of snow to fall in a single 6 hour window, which correlates to an average of 2"+ an hour. That would likely be sufficient to keep temps at freezing and produce a more-snow-than-not event for Philly. Figuring out the mechanisms for that to happen will be useful in determining probabilities. Edits: grammar, error of fact in one sentence.

I'll have more to comment on later. Want to see the full suite of guidance before going too crazy. I don't think anything has truly changed in the macroscale in the last few hours--the 00z gfs so far basically confirms the setup vs lending to any kind of refutation of the thinking (vis a vis the 18z blip). We're still too far out to look at the mesoscale models or even the NAM so we're in a limbo period--we can see approximately what's going to happen now, we don't know the precise axis of dilitation, timing of any deformation bands, and other finer-graded minutia. At this point, without being the grinch for jinxing us, I would be shocked at less than 8. I would be fairly confident with a foot, and 16" using kuchara is within range. Remember that many years ago, the models were bulliish on the 09 blizzard, then the NAM came in and blew them out of the water. Everything so far has said this is a major event. Therefore, this isn't looking good for 6, for 4...it's a honker. Concurrently, if the storm did "bust", it would be disappointing--even though *technically* we have not seen this type of accum in 2 seasons (even if 6" fell)--but where we are right now is a major event. 00z GFS run even makes a brief go at blizzard condition criteria for Philly. However I also remember several times the last few years in which a major storm was progged (12+) and it MAJORLY busted. Thus, caution is a virtue, but take what the consensus of models are all saying with some confidence. Note: edits for grammar/style.

Yes, the 00z run is phenomenal. I'm so excited I actually can't think of what to type right now . But you're right, this is as good as it gets.

I'm in the wrong forum but YAY!!!!!!!!!!!

I feel bad for everyone's washing machine. Everyone's going to need to wash their pants now.

Lots of good discussion right now on this whole setup in the Mid Atlantic forum. But, yeah, I mean look run-to-run is going to look different, that's the game (makes it fun)! EPS 18z looked solid, made 18z gfs look like an outlier. 18z gefs was reasonable as well. Still plenty of time--we're nearing the place where the op models and their ensembles converge enough to switch over to the op (though just to throw it out there--there's never a *bad* time to use an ensemble...averaging perturbations does well to ameliorate the woes of chaos theory at hour 100 and also at hour 10). Going to be a solid storm for the Philly region regardless, this is more a question imho of weenie solution MECS vs a more standard SECS. I want my MECS (unfortunately I don't think HECS is in the cards here using the statistical 1:10 year standard, but hey, I'll keep hoping). Suggest poss creating a dedicated topic if the 00z runs continue to indicate or trend for major storm (really seems warranted regardless now).

Four thoughts-- 1) I'm excited. Semantics aside, it's been TWO YEARS since we had an interesting winter weather setup in the Philly area of any kind. I don't care if we get 6", 16", 20"...I just want to see some white stuff falling out of the sky! 2) In the short term, the 12z NAM and other short-range guidance indicate a low-impact rain-snow for the Philly metro wrt Monday's system. The 12z GFS is similar, with a widespread 1"-2" projected, likely not going to stick though due to temps. Snow rate will not be sufficient to facilitate significant air cooling due to latent energy release of melting so seems unlikely to be one of the sneak storms that drops an inch or two that no one expected to see. MOS and other guidance suggest temps could top in the low 40s, that may be a high bet given the cloud cover (& limited evap cooling) so perhaps upper 30s makes more sense. It should be stated that were we to get a widespread trace to 1-2" of snow early this week, the increase in albedo could locally result in a marginal temperature decrease. In this context, that may matter (33 vs 32 degrees type of thing)--but, again, will depend on how that whole solution verifies. Tracing back, the models come to a snow conclusion based on freezing in the 850-700 mb level, with marginal above freezing temps below. Similarly, the evolution and track of the first low and its impact on the dynamics it brings in behind it somewhat matter on whether we in fact are looking at a foot maker, or beyond into the GFS weenie-utopia land of 20+. 3) The second storm right now is a semi-classic miller B type setup. When I look at Miller B's (and As for that matter)... I like to check out the NAO first. The NAO is marginally negative right now and progged to become much more negative over the next few days. That both leads me to more "lingering" solutions, and to a more messy p-type analysis due to more northward progression of the low. This means the system won't end up busting out to sea--it could "bust" warm if it goes further north, but it ain't a non-event. This also applies to the first storm, and may be why the signal for that is getting a bit more amplified with time. 4) A fairly strong jet streak will enhance precip in the mid-week storm, and could lead to enhancement of banding through some extra forcing for ascent.Thus, if we did maintain the cold solution, we'd probably see a couple of mesoscale corridors setup where you'll see the real maximal snow amounts. This seems plausible regardless of the specific "where" the low eventually tracks.

Also I did want to announce, user WeatherQ did win last night's contest. They predicted 931mb, 150mph winds. I didn't have the opportunity to verify the scores last night--44 members submitted entries--but wanted to officially acknowledge their win today now that the dust has settled haha. Good job!!

Wrt the hhunters, I agree it is good not to speculate and I'd really only buy that news from the nhc, their staff, the hunters, their staff, or a tropical met professor. I consider that report plausible but dramatized. As both a met an avgeek, I know enough about both to say that while wind shear can rocket you around, wings are built to handle 150% of their expected in-life stress load. In 1988, a mesovortex almost downed a P-3, with 200 mph winds causing a +5.8g and -3.7g stress that ripped off a propeller and brought the plane to within 1k feet of sea level. That was hurricane hugo. Mesovortices are dangerous, the ever so slightly alarm tinged vdm they sent out stating many mesos circulating coupled with stopping outgoing data reporting and the other plane turning around do all point strongly to the safety threat. Speculation beyond that (stalling, structural integrity), are rumors and not things one can know unless explained by an official source. While I did mention stalling as a threat, they usually fly around 240 knots in the eyewall, and the nice thing with the C-130 is that it has a very low stall speed and high stability. Look at the hhunter personal Twitter pages for any comments on that. I agree with JasonOH on the probability for the surface winds to be gust driven. However it may also, itself, be due to a mesovortex. Last night and today we see low level wind fields potentially above the mid levels. This is not a typical presentation and can be due to mesovortex interaction which can raise wind speeds near the surface. Per a nasa paper https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/3377 , wind speeds in a mesovortex can be 10% higher than the rest of the eye. Pressures are up, wind speeds down a bit. Could be completion of an erc or erc nearing completion. Could also be that the shallow water near the coast which the eye is over has lower overall heat content and unwelling brought up slightly cooler water. Final possibility is that minimal land interaction is adversely affecting the storm. That's more likely if a secondary larger eye is taking over that may already have part of its circulation on the coast. This thing definitely made a valiant effort at cat 5, but appears it was not to be. I do wonder if the storm may have briefly attained cat 5 intensity at some point and we just didn't have the data point. Two things are now in my mind. First is how this affects Central America. 14-20 feet of storm surge. Phew. The location is south of most population centers however the flooding rain is going to hit the whole country. Some people will still also get impacted by the eyewall. Second it starting to look more at what the models are suggesting medium range, and comparing that against basic physics principles and figuring out what's likely and what's not.

Bingo.