psuhoffman

Wtf

Oh I had that duel banding structure in my forecast. I buy that. It’s the general drying at the last minute in less sure of. There will be winners and losers based on meso scale banding though.

Here is the actual exchange, then you don’t have to stand by anything, everyone can see for themselves.

That’s fine but the people here have the right to know the truth. They can go read the other thread and see for themselves that you’re lying.

The trends are what they are but the storm had been over performing in many locations to our west. And I’ve noted several times over the years when guidance pulled this drying up thing right at the last minute and it was wrong. We will know real soon.

If you’re going to reference my post please quote or link it so people can see for themselves. You’re misrepresenting what my exchange with chuck was about. He criticized the NWS not my forecast. The NWS went higher than me. But I felt his attack was unfair. He made several inaccurate statements. He was trying to make a case they had no justification for their high snowfall forecasts and denied models are trending lower with qpf. The NWS made those forecasts this morning based on 12z data that at the time was averaging around .5qpf and trending upward. It’s not fair to use information that came out after they made those forecasts to call them unjustified. He also inexplicably twice claimed guidance never showed more qpf then when I called him out and showed the trends he blew it off and switched to other arguments. Chuck can be brilliant. He can also be infuriating at times. And just because he has issues doesn’t mean he gets to attack someone with misrepresentation or flat out lies and not get called out. Lastly we go back and forth a lot. We have a rapport in the other forum. We often argue but it’s not hostile. I respect him but in this case he was wrong and misrepresenting things in a way unfair to NWS.

34/17 waiting. Radar looks good to me.

The storm has been over performing to our west. Makes no sense. I’m skeptical.

I live on Dug Hill!

The euro weeklies did. The EMON plots ran through 8/1/2, mostly at low amp but they did back when they looked amazing.

I dunno. We need the PDO to flip that’s for sure because the western pac warm pool, expanded Hadley cell and PDO are all amplifying each other’s effect in an awful feedback loop for our snow prospects. Once the PDO (which is still a cyclical thing that’s the one part of this equation that I can admit is not CC related) flips we can evaluate how much of a problem those other 2 factors (which may be more permanent) are. But we’ve proven that those factors along with the -pdo are pretty much insurmountable. Our goalposts within this current paradigm are completely snowless winters to if we get super lucky and almost everything else that could goes perfectly we can fight our way to a near avg snowfall winter. But I don’t think we can get a truly epic snowy winter of the type we all honestly dream of before each year starts until this current pacific cycle ends.

@Stormchaserchuck1 not everyone bases they’re snowfall forecast on 1984 atari snow depth maps

For the record I’m not cliff jumping. I love to analyze this stuff. I’m curious why the CAMs are off on a tangent so close to game time. But I’ve noted they do this sometimes and the radar looks great. But I’m always open minded to all possibilities. Maybe they’re right. Doubt it but I’ve seen weirder things! It’s chips fall time. But I like to analyze all these situations. They are learning experiences. We will have another similar wave scenario to this someday in the future and the outcome here along with the performance of these guidance tools will be used to help me make a better forecast in the future.

No, but when nws had to make decisions based 12z guidance of gfs and NAM and 6z euro earlier today the blend of what NWS weights most GFS EURO 3kNAM was showing ~.5 qpf across the area and most importantly qpf was trending up at that time, all 3 were showing a good slp track and crazy insane fgen over the area and a thermal profile conducive to optimal dendritic growth and good ratios. It may have been a little ambitious but found with 3-5 and 5-8 across the area at that time wasn’t crazy given a mean qpf of .5, and up trend, and potential for decent ratios. I kind of doubt they would have gone so ambitious had they known what the 18z guidance would look like. But now they have to decide whether to lower based on off hour runs and CAMs which are notoriously unreliable or let the forecast ride despite some new evidence suggesting they are a bit liberal on snow. You were misrepresenting things to make it seem like guidance never supported what they have and I disagree. When they released it at the time I thought it was a but high, they went over my forecast numbers, but not by a lot and given trends at that time it was reasonable.

Dude you can be brilliant sometimes and others frustrating a heck. You said the models aren’t drying up. I posted the euro and gfs trend showing less qpf. I could do the same with the 3k and 12k NAM also. If you say something that’s patently false you can’t complain when it’s called out.

Yes they are. Gfs euro not worth discussing the rest when you’re not starting in reality.

Remember that rug pull like March 8 2018. Euro, NAM both, GFS, RGEM GGEM all had 4-8” across MD from that miller b? Then the HRRR started showing nothing…with the precip shield developing like 75 miles northeast if what all other guidance had. I remember us both saying to each other, We’ll die on the hill with the euro et all. No way all guidance is that wrong from like 12 hours and hrrr is right. Well… still waiting for my 4-8” from that one. Not saying I buy the hrrr and rap. We could cite 100 other times they were off on a crazy tangent. But I never ever feel comfortable unless we’re in the bullseye of some hecs with 20” 75 miles either side of me heading into it. It’s slightly troubling and perplexing they are trending worse as we get closer. People like to pretend it’s safe as some coping mechanism but I’ve had enough rug pulls and I guess I’m not a cops by lying to myself type.

this is part of the problem. I agree the mjo gets too much attention. It’s not THE end all some act like. But it is a significant part of the equation. And in a strong Nino it should look opposite what this chart shows. This looks just like the mjo plots from the last 7 years. Unfortunately the strong Nino wasn’t able to significantly alter the recent pacific base state. The warm pool near the MC continued to plague us. One issue is that water is so fooking warm even in a Nino there’s going to be convection there messing with the pattern drivers. And the water there is frankly going to be warmer than the enso regions. Maybe not the anomalies but the raw temps. Obviously this doesn’t mean we can’t get snow or decent patterns. But it’s hard to get sustained cold and great patterns with the mjo waves circling the MC hostile regions all winter. We were supposed to be in 8/1/2 from Feb 15-March 15. Want to know what suddenly changed…the better looks on guidance collapsed when the mjo signal changed.

My temp is 36 but the dew point is only 17 so I’m not too concerned

3 things. 1)Often these last second dry trends on guidance are BS. It’s happened many many many times. I can think of two that really stuck out. Last run before Jan 2004 storm after days of 4-8” guidance suddenly came in dry with like 2-4”. We got 4-8. Night before Feb 11 2010 guidance slashed qpf way down. We got what they had been showing. I don’t know why it happens. But many times I’ve observed this dry up right at game time and it was wrong. 2)Radar looks great and the forcing over the area is insane 3)they might be counting on better ratios than models think. The DGZ is perfect. It’s only ground temps. If it snows hard enough to overcome ground temps ratios could end up better than the 8 or 9-1 the models are thinking. I don’t know what to make of it. The radar looks in line with the NAM/GFS/Euro with a healthy southern precip max along the polar boundary not focusing on the arctic boundary. But the CAMs keep going harder and harder on the arctic wave and drying up the fgen associated banding which makes little sense given how intense that looks. Of course to make it worse I can’t find an outlet that shows mid level dynamics for the hhhr or rap so I have no way of knowing why they are doing that. I can’t tell much just from the crap data they provide for those.

I’ll take my chances with this

Get used to it. Boundary is warming faster than other levels