SnowenOutThere

Little bit more of the vorticity south which might help pull it further south.

Believe the NAM might be better than its 18z counterpart for Saturday

Always knew making this thread would pay off for Charlottesville. Part of the master plan.

UKMET probably going to be worse than its really good 0z run as there more energy left in the northern part of the trough so it can't neg tilt as well.

Thought this thread could be a good way to make our forum a bit of a nicer place! Basically the gist is to tell another poster (or the community in general) something that you appreciate about them/generally be nice to them. You can pick as many or as few people as you want. Additionally, if picked you don't need to feel pressured to respond or anything. I'll start off by recognizing @NorthArlington101 for being supportive of the newer posters on here as without him I might've quit this forum a while ago. Additionally, he is a chill guy who's helped me with UVA and stuff. Additionally, I'd like to @ @bncho for being a newer poster here who's already starting to add to our community as it's always nice to have more people interested in our hobby. Finally, I'd like to thank @Eskimo Joe for all of his analysis this year and general less pessimistic outlook than years past as his increased presence this year has been part of the reason that I feel our forecasting ability is higher than in years past. Of course, honorable mention to Terpest, Cape, Psu, MillivilleWx, WxUSAF, WxMeddler, and more for dealing with all of my (and others) questions about storm setups to help our whole subforum become more knowledgeable!

It has the northern vort lobe and a broader trough so until those two features fix themselves its hard to get anything.

Lets reanalyze the situation. Obviously the GFS has continued to trend better for our area, but why has that happened? As I pointed out in this post we were struggling with a significant amount of vorticity north of where we want it to consolidate which prevents us from getting a good surface low going. The latest 12z GFS pretty much doesn't have that at all anymore as the flow behind it acts to pinch off the northern end of the vorticity and flatten it. Being brutally honest, I don't know how likely that really is to happen. Additionally, the vort lobes that were (and probably will) cause us problems still exist and have a bunch of complex low-to-low interactions out in the plains, luckily it ends with them merging into a weaker low. Another thing to note that helps this run out is the additional piece of energy south of the main vorticity ribbon. IMO without this energy (and it is nonexistent on some past runs) there isn't the same mechanism to get it to go so negatively tilted and as far south. If you can notice I'm not super enthused about this setup as it stands because 1. it seems complicated with so many interactions within the trough itself 2. This run seemed to go extremely well for us and it seems like adjusting any parameters (besides increasing the southern energy) may actually hurt us. That said, I'm also a bit pessimistic from other tracking this year so I may be biased, additionally, I am not one of the actually smart mets on here so defer to them but I hope this helps people understand what to look for. Additionally, my somewhat pessimistic view doesn't mean I don't think its a possibility, but instead that is exactly what this storm is to me, a possibility, NOT a certainty or "lock" like less complicated setup.

I'd take this

Interesting H5 look as the vorticity is weaker but displaced further south and more neg tilted

Snowing over us at 99 its a hit.

GFS with another bit of improvement for Saturday. Is starting to make a chase out to WV look more fun. That said, it might be about to do something rather significant with the Sunday/Monday time period.

Wait did everyone just ignore the light event the GFS has for the @NorthArlington101 Storm just because it isn’t 60 inches?

Yep, just make sure you check to make sure there’s no CAPE or thunderstorm potential. Oh and always approach from the top as I tried going bottom up once and the bridge was washed out

They do extremely well in moisture laden classical nor’easters and tropical remnant setups. We typically get a system or two like that in spring/early summer and I highly recommend a rain hike out there. You get to experience entering into the cloud deck and it just dumping rain with all the streams being crystal clear. In some ways I remember it more fondly than my snow hikes in Catoctins, WV and MD.

At least Ji doesn’t live in southern PA or else we’d have to hear about him “losing” 60 inches in one run

So I guess the GEFS shows signs of that but everything is too displaced north as of now. Will need to watch it though.

0z GFS had a notable jump west with the precip and had it more widespread getting it all the way to the Eastern parts of our subforum. Had a good amount of upper air improvements as well but just couldn't quite consolidate quickly enough around the southern part of the vort due to an extremely annoying vort max which acts as a minor development blocker. I'm honestly not sure if we can get the trends all the way to the southern end where we ultimately need it to be (just seems unlikely to get that solution in this situation akin to this Thursday), but if we were able to it would be a major storm.

Ah thank you. So basically when we're discussing the PNA for this time period its more so about the upper northwest instead of the California region. So basically we need better ridging to the north of the closed low to encourage high pressure and cold air transport while maintaining the TPV to anchor the high out east in place. Do we actually have any mechanisms for this stuff (particularly the TPV) to remain in pace to prevent the SER resurgence because otherwise it seems like a longshot with timing.

I think this latest GFS will be significantly better for us from how the H5 is looking out over the plains. Still probably a bit too broad though.

I understand how a neg pna typically hurts us but I'm wondering how else we get a wave to track like the 18z shows. I understand that this is a traditionally -pna with a low in the southwest. However, like you said it is progressive so this low moves eastward and throws moisture up in front of it (alongside the WAA and ridging as a result of it impacting the flow). So to my (flawed) understanding wouldn't having higher heights in the pna region basically mean our storm doesn't exist/is far weaker? Or alternatively the pna is more positive which results in the storm rolling off the ridge at a higher latitude before dipping eastward in a trough, which seems like it would cause even worse thermal issues. I guess I'm just struggling to see how else we get a SWFL event without a negative or neutral PNA.

Pardon my ignorance but to get such an overrunning event don't we need a negative (or neutral) PNA since the wave is from the southern stream and tracks eastward across the country? Wouldn't a positive PNA block it's path or force it to be significantly weaker/disjointed as part of it goes over the ridge and part goes under?

I dunno man you should consult the big ones are locked in early chart.

What about this sounding? I mean could you even imagine the ground truth of a saturated DGZ that large with lift throughout it?

4 inches of sleet followed by a half foot of snow with some freezing rain mixed in would probably get me out of classes for more than a bit. Would also get gusts into the 30s to sandblast anyone (all of us) stupid enough to be outside.