psuhoffman

I’ll take my chance on a better threat

I was playing in the snow with my children! Then I got the flu and almost died. Sorry lol

1942. But…there is one group here that apparently has decided it can’t snow anymore before January and now they want to toss after Feb 20 then I say “it’s getting harder” and another group wants to crucify me. Which is it. We can’t start tossing a freaking HUGE portion of our historical potential snow climo then at the same time act like everything is fine and we will somehow get the same snow results compressed into 6 weeks that we used to expect spread out over 12 weeks.

You’re wrong about what I like. The only reason I’m so often stuck analyzing super long range tea leaves is because there is nothing closer of interest. When there is a big snowstorm 24 hours away you don’t see me posting about day 15 pattern clues that much.

@Terpeast I’m not sure the lack of an HECS after PD isn’t partly just small ample size. Baltimore has only had 9 20” storms in 130+ years of records. One of those did happen in late March! They’ve had several 10” plus storms after Feb 20. I’m not sure with a sample of 9 in 130 years we can say that the odds really collapse that much between Feb 20-March 10. Obviously they do degrade some and after mid March there is a cliff at some point. But given the right pattern I don’t think a 20” storm late Feb or early March is that much less likely. Thinking back on my lifetime the bigger issue is there often has not been the right pattern between Feb 20-March 10 for that kind of storm. We’ve had some great looks mid and late March when I do think it was getting difficult for DC and Baltimore to cash in big. But Feb 20-March 10 has kinda been a weird dead zone many years. Plenty of “good” patterns but not really many I can remember thinking an hecs was likely or even possible.

I like the PD period for our first BIG threat

@WEATHER53 I don't want to start a back and forth that derails the thread. I shouldn't have been so short just now and I apologize. But we both know we do not agree on some things. And that is fine, hopefully you can agree that lately I have not been engaging with you and letting you say your peace. But may I ask that you don't put words in my mouth or quote me to further your agenda when it's not in the spirit of what I said. I promise I won't do that to you either. If I want to make a point I will just make it. That will keep our engagement more civil. We will probably never agree on this, but we don't have to fight about it, we can just have our different points of view and be two ships passing in the night for the sake of everyone else here.

yea that isn't what I said

Yea, I know. I think what happened was there was kind of a false flag, between the Feb 6 "threat" popping up, and the fact that at day 16 the ridge was washed out and so the pattern looked more workable then perhaps it ever really was around Feb 10th, people started to push up the timeline. A week ago I targeted Feb 10-15 as the transition period and after Feb 15 and "good" and I have not wavered from that and so everything is "right on target" for me. But obviously some wanted to jump right into the snowstravaganza by Feb 10 and so are disappointed now.

The ridge is centered in the exact same place on both plots

I really think part of it is that some don't understand the difference between what a single day is likely to look like at day 16 and what that same day would be likely to look like by day 10. For example, several days ago day 16 heights over the east looked near average but with a wave/trough centered to our west and one to our east. But timing differences on the members washes out the ridge that was likely to be in between these troughs. Now that it has become day 10-12 and the timing differences are being resolved there is a ridge over us during that period between the two waves, and that "red over us" just makes it feel worse when people glance at it. But in reality its the same exact pattern that was being projected. That's what I think is going on.

In actuality those 2 plots look about the same. The difference is the second one is 4 days closer so details are being resolved. The features are sharper. But look at the location of the 4 main features in the pattern A,B,C,D are all located in about the same places. But we are seeing the ridging in between the two troughs (B and D) clearer now as the ensembles resolve timing issues and zero in on the exact location of the features. The fact that we are directly in between the waves and the ridge is showing right over us makes it look worse...but in reality those are the same plots just one is what the same pattern looks like as it gets closer.

The inception of the pattern, which is in the Pacific, has been on day 16 for a few days, but it takes a while to reshuffle the downstream pattern over N America and that has been progressing consistently, people are just trying to rush it, understandably.

Perception bias. The day 16 was "getting close" so people were extrapolating it. In reality the last week its been progressing consistently. Day 16 4 days ago Day 16 3 days ago Day 16 2 days ago Day 16 Yesterday Day 16 now

12z gefs looks on track

Still looks good to me, if we have temp issues with this mean longwave flow in Feb...it's time to pack it in and find a new hobby.

that's still 12 days away, we better have something tangible in our sights by then.

If we get to Feb 10 and we aren't tracking a high level threat it's time to hit the panic button

lol I brought this up like 2 weeks ago, he just never admits anything until there is no possible way to avoid it anymore.

@Bob Chill the whole warmer waters all around us not good for snow isn't complicated. I am NOT saying the Hudson High is definitely a casualty of warming. But keep in mind that kind of pattern wasn't a gradient thing where the storm track would just gradually shift north and maybe NYC holds onto snow longer than us. That regime is a generally warm one where storms would just take a good track and create just enough cold for a wet sloppy snowstorm. Temps weren't much different in Boston from DC. Even in Boston these were marginal events in that kind of pattern. So it is possible that if you warm the whole regime a couple degrees it flips the equation everywhere towards rain, its not necessarily a latitude issue.

@Bob Chill I don’t have the answers. I’m just speculating. You’re right sometimes we just go through stinker periods. But when does this one reach a length that’s beyond that simple explanation. The 80s had 3 moderate to strong ninos. They are all above normal snowfall and produced 4 KU and 3 other MECS between them. I do think it’s a particularly bad sign if (and I’m not there yet I seem to have more hope left for this season) a Nino can’t even break the funk. Ninos have been out funk proof way to get snow no matter what the base state period was around it in the past.

Just throwing this out there, based on that case study I did of all Baltimore warning snowfalls a few years ago, if we’ve lost the ability to snow from a Hudson Bay high regime then we have truly lost a huge chunk of our snowfall climo from 20-50 years ago. The Hudson high was the second most prevalent pattern that showed up in the case study. But I notes at the time the frequency of them seemed to be on the decline compared to the other subsets.

It doesn’t matter in terms of ground truth but I don’t think the pattern has been can kicked. But as things are coming into greater clarity it seems unlikely the first two “waves” within the pattern are likely to produce anything. The first looks like possibly suppresses and temp issues. The second has a spacing issue. A bit too much separation between the two waves creates too muck ridging in between and likely makes the Feb 10-13 period a no go. These are disappointing developments but not necessarily a can kick. As we get deeper into the pattern I think the chances will increase. Each wave break should push the ridge further north on the Atlantic side. A better nao will mitigate wave spacing issues for future threat windows. We’re not there yet for the first couple waves.

I’ve been unconcerned because the guidance isn’t in any conflict with the main feature which is the North Pacific trough. Yes as we get closer there are issues with exactly where and when waves will be. But so long as that pacific look is there it will work out. Energy out west will have to kick east. Ridges will be transient. The nao will slowly go more negative from the resultant wave breaking.

Something that needs to be resolved is the handling of the trough as it crosses the Rockies. The gfs is mostly alone is completely splitting the trough then burying the main energy into Mexico. That’s game over for any Feb 5-6 storm. Ggem, euro, Icon and even the gefs mostly favor the trough elongating then ejecting the main energy into the southern plains and crossing east either through the TN valley gulf coast. That still doesn’t guarantee a storm. Some runs within that solution still mess up the phase or squash the storm. There are other variables that need to work out also. But that first one, whether the trough splits and digs into Mexico is critical before any of the others matter. One oddity. I’m not an expert in handling energy in the mountain west. But I follow the meteorologists on OpenSnow. They do great daily write up’s for every major ski resort area. Looking at some of the write up’s for Utah, Colorado and New Mexico, they seem to be favoring the gfs trough split. I find that odd because the gfs is mostly alone in that solution. Without experience just modelology I would never favor the gfs v consensus. But again, they might be leaning on experience here and that matters. Or perhaps they are just being pessimistic (the gfs trough split would leave the ski areas dry) because it’s been an awful season so far out west. But anyways just thought I’d point that out because it’s not getting much attention, and imo how that ejects out west matters as much as what’s going on over top of us.