psuhoffman

Im not throwing in the towel on this year her. The pattern is very good in terms of being right for any amplification to be a snow threat. We just need something to happen. The last wave was a pretty good hit. This next one is so damn close but looks to be a miss. This pattern isn’t breaking down and is reloading actually. We have at least 3 more weeks and maybe more if guidance is right. We juts need 1-2 more hits. It can happen. After this we need a -AO Nino basically. What stacks the deck most would be to time up a west based Nino with a favorable solar and QBO. Problem is next year is likely to have unfavorable solar and QBO and early signs are east based. So…

No our biggest issue next year is if it’s an east based Nino with a hostile QBO. Not all Ninos are snowy. Just the ones that are can be VERY snowy.

I don’t think he is active on here, he lurks sometimes.

Jokes aside it’s a good sign we’ve had 2 cold winters in a row. Our struggles turning that into a lot of snow has more to do with the lack of STJ because…Nina, than anything else and cold dry wingers were always a thing going back 100 years. So glass half full maybe we are out of the main issue that plagued us from 2017-2024 and we just haven’t had a snowy winter yet (and I’ve not given up on this one yet we just need one flush hit and the pattern is far from hopeless).

I’m fine. I’ll be in Vermont at my friends, drunk off my arse this weekend BTW, he’s the smart one. He was a meteorology student with me at PSU. Big snow weenie. So he bought a snowmobile farm on top of a mountain in Vermont that averages about 150” of snow.

And before anyone says “but it snows once in a while” yea it has to just enough to keep us engaged. If it never snowed at all we would have all either moved or moved on to other things in our lives by now. No no no, in order to inflict the absolute most pain and suffering possible they have to give us just enough hope to keep us coming back each time for the next kick in the nads.

I’ve realized we are living in a simulation and the code was written by someone who was wronged by a mid Atlantic snow weenie and the whole point of the simulation is to get revenge

It had to trend closer in order to inflict the maximum amount of emotional trauma.

This longwave pattern is exactly what we need...we just need some freaking waves to amplify within it... but the mean h5 the next 3 weeks is exactly what all our big snow periods look like... but within that pattern we need some freaking storms to come along...the longwave doesn't matter if there are no energetic shortwaves embedded within it.

@Terpeast @MN Transplant @WxUSAF Question... something I've noticed anecdotally over the last 20 years, when 3-5 days out we have models projecting a favorable H5 feature for our area...it trends north a significant majority of the time. However...when guidance has a cutoff h5 feature projected too far south of us...it does not tend to trend north as often. I can think of a logical reason, perhaps if a cutoff is far enough south its far enough removed from the NS flow and not impacted by minor variations the models typically get wrong...and which cause the north bleed in these features when they are around our latitude. Just wondering if you have also noticed this and if there is something to it, besides just random chance and us getting really unlucky lately.

I can't look right now...but might want to take a look at the "median" or 50% map...to see if that snowfall closer to DC is the product of a few crazy outlier runs that have like 20" creating that mean of 2" in the area. We get a lot of false flags where people look at a mean on the EPS and think it's saying we should get some snow when really it's not saying that at all and the snow mean is just a product of big outlier solutions.

I said I’d reserve judgement until today. I don’t need to see everything lock in on a big hit today but I need to see it look close enough that the typical small bleed north we see the final 72 hours will be enough. What we need most at this point is some combo of 3 things. For the upper low to go negative slightly sooner, more separation up top so it can lift north sooner or for the whole thing to simply cut off further north.

I’d rather need a north trend than south.

It’s digging and cutting off too far south. Since once it cuts off it’s not going to lift north due to the flow over the top we need it to cut off and track across the NC/VA border not down near SC. We just need one thing, for that upper low to trend north.

Buy me a drink at the next HH. If it trends worse from 18z first rounds on me

Wait 2.5 hours

It was coming north, at least enough to get out area before turning ENE.

My best guess looping the h5 and mslp is the nam was going to pull that low right up off VA beach or Norfolk then slide ENE based on how the flow was backing and where the upper low was about to cut off.

I am not throwing in the towel until tomorrow. One observation before tonight's runs.... Need a north trend = good shape Need a west trend = next This is because of typical model bias errors. Models very commonly are too far south in the medium range with northern stream mid and upper level features. That H5 low is likely to adjust north some in the final 48 hours. So if things start to trend towards a solution closer to the GFS, again not necessarily that extreme, but with a miss somewhat to our SOUTH not EAST... we are in the game going into the final 48 because I expect the same bleed north we see 75% of the time. Models do NOT, however, have a bias of usually amplifying too slowly in phase situations. If anything it's the opposite. Miller b storms trend east more often than west. So if the guidance converges on the more east idea with a more positively tilted upper low that doesn't close off until 6-12 hours later and we need a west trend... this is dead going into the final 48 hours. Again, I will reserve judgement until tomorrow

It wasn’t, the track was almost identical to 12z but the storm was slightly more intense but also compact. Less broad precip shield. It was noise. The overall setup improved. But within each larger scale setup there is variability to the outcome based on small scale variables. IMO this run had a better chance of a good result but we saw a worse ground truth based on some noise level variables not going our way.

I am totally fine with where the ggem is. It actually trended better with the larger features. The fact the storm was slightly east was noise

Ggem trend

A thought. There is variability within the larger scale setup. So it’s possible to get a better setup in terms of the major long wave features but end up with a worse result due to minor factors causing a slower development or less amplification. However, if the larger scale trend of backing both the NS wave and the western ridge continues at some point a better outcome becomes much more likely regardless of the small scale variables. In other words get the whole thing to back another 150 miles and it would take a much less perfect progression to get a hit. Right now we could win but it would take damn near perfect phase and amplification which is what the runs showing a hit have. Keep improving the ridge/trough axis and even a less perfect result can end up good.