psuhoffman

Why are the Icon and rgem soooo warm! It’s Feb with a sub 990 low off the Delmarva and moderate precip. And it’s close to 40! WTF

@GreyHat can’t even blame me this time I laid off ya. But when it’s everyone else maybe it’s just you!

Sorry if it’s been posted but the SREF said folks this morning Went from this…. to this!

There is some truth to this (can't combine qpf and cold). Think about it...the EPO is the biggest tele for cold, but has absolutely not statistically significant correlation to significant snowstorms. Why? Because very cold patters are often dry! Think about how rare snowstorms are with temps below 20 degrees! I can remember all of them...because there aren't that many! Most of our snow comes near or just below freezing because historically our best snowfall patterns were split flow regimes where the northern stream was out the damn way but that also means no arctic air! A ton of our snow had to work with marginal home grown typical winter air not arctic air. If we are only cold enough to snow in true arctic airmasses we lose all those storms. We haven't lost them all yet...but we are losing quite a few which is why DC's average snowfall has gone from 25" to 14" in the last 100 years!

My Daughters name is Nora Lynn

They had it for about 24 hours then lost it. It’s kinda a delicate balance. Everyone is just focused on snow maps and omg and model bashing but the phasing at about 24 hours is delicate balance between the two waves and just enough energy making it around the base makes the whole trough end up negative later on by putting enough energy out front to tilt the whole thing on its axis. But we’d normally never notice the relatively minor interplay of vort energy taking place if it wasn’t impacting a possible snowstorm. The result is hugely different but the cause is a relatively minor difference in handling how those 2 SWs interact within the trough early on.

Peace. Enjoy all the snow maps and “omg” posts

It reversed its trend on that this run and I’m very glad it did

There is only one model showing the coastal bombing and tucking and that (gfs) gives me 1.5 qpf. I’ll be just fine if that happens! But unless you’re in ocean city nothing else is even close with the CCB associated precip. Do I want the gfs to be right YES. But since that’s very unlikely, even now, I’m rooting for what is the better way more probable path to snow. The better trend on the other 18z guidance was enough to enhance the IVT with a close coastal but make no mistake without the IVT we are still always from all other guidance showing a hit from the actual miller b. We’d need another 2 shifts like the one we just for. Possible but rare I’ve seen the kind of amplification adjustment we need in the dozens of times we’ve been in this exact spot But that IVT can train moisture in off the developing coastal I’ve seen that happen way more often.

The IVT is responsible for 75% of that snow on the euro. It’s still our best chance of significant snow. If the coastal is closer it can help enhance that and it might seem like it’s part of the coastal but unless the gfs actually scores a coup nothing else shows our area (outside maybe the Delmarva) getting into the developing CCB snowfall from the miller b coastal. Even the much improved 18z euro all our snow is from the moisture training along the IVT.

The gfs came 10% towards the euro and the euro came 40% of the way to the GfS at 18z. Still a wide gap but not as crazy as before. Usually those compromise % are flipped

Just post some ensemble means eta I’m currently medicated for reasons I won’t go into so maybe I’m impaired BUT I stand by what I said even if the delivery is off

It’s the fooking GFS. I want a HECS as bad as everyone else but I give the gfs about as much credence as the JMA. It doesn’t even deserve play by play anymore. It’s not a major player anymore it’s just not. How many times has it failed in the last 2 years. Maybe not THIS bad but every fooking time we say “it can’t be this bad every time” Ya it is. We’d be better off ignoring it! I’m paying attention to the thing that might actually be real and is on all the better guidance. This isn’t to say there is 0 chance. Sure once in a blue moon some crazy freak solution can happen. There are a couple members within the better ensembles like that. It’s within the scope of what’s possible. But it’s a crazy long shot and I’m not getting excited until something better shows it. Until then I’m focused on the IVT which I think is real and they can sometimes put down a lot of snow. At least by our pittance standards.

This is another case where it’s showing degradation of snowfall we don’t even think about. The track of the 6z run reminded me a lot of a storm in the 60s that gave the Delmarva 20-28” but also have my area 20” and I was wondering why that run only had 10” here. Ya know how. I went back and looked at the coop data from the past storm. Delmarva got 24” from 2.5qpf. My area got 20” from 1.2 qpf. The gfs run was showing me getting 10” from 1.2qpf. Because it was so damn warm at the surface! 2 degrees colder (which is about what it was then) and it would have been 15-20” here from ratios! Usually further west makes up for less QPF with ratios but not if it’s 33 degrees!