psuhoffman

thanks for clearing that up for us

This kinda reminds me of Jan 05. That sucked because we fooled ourselves into expecting 1-2 feet a couple days out. But maybe if we know going in our ceiling is probably 2-6 south to north it won’t be as annoying.

It’s south. That’s the most important thing imo right now. We can root for a slight amp up trend later. I’d rather need that than need to get it south.

I’m only to 120 but I think I like it a lot more than 0z

Plus if the SW can survive at all it has a chance to amp once it gets close to us as the trough splits and amplifies over us.

Well it seems south but…WAY weaker lol. I was thinking slightly weaker not totally squashed. But I’d still prefer this than amped north of us. We’ve seen things amp up some at the end. We almost never see a NS wave trend south at the very end.

TPV press could keep it under us at least. We need two kinds contradictory things. More amped but also a further south track of the SW. For now south is more important imo. We can get it juiced up a bit later. But if we go into the home stretch with the NS SW too far north it’s probably game over.

All over. Light coating.

There was nothing worth posting.

Gefs is much better. This is where I want it.

Because I analyze every snow threat. I did this same exorcise with every Baltimore snowstorm from 1948 to now! When they are good I analyze why. When they are bad I analyze why. And it’s hard for me to do that and ignore something I’m noticing which is things that used to work don’t seem to anymore as often! But when we get a snowstorm I’ll be all over analyzing the reasons why it is snowing. Think back. I was all over digging into looking at VV plots and moisture transport and instability and pinning down a deform when we got snow. The reason this is all I’m talking about lately is it’s not snowing at all dammit. I’d much rather be analyzing some mid level VV plot to pin down a 3”/hr death band. Have I been wrong about anything? Have we got some snowstorm when I was being a massive Deb about it? I will be wrong. I’ve been wrong before. I will again. But recently have I been a deb or have I just been correctly assessing the situation and giving accurate analysis? Do you want BS everything’s fine or the truth?

Consider this…why come in to the panic room, choose to respond, then complain about the discussion? Maybe it’s just frustration manifesting?

The tpv never fully gets to 50/50 until late and by then the block is retrograding too much. For this setup it’s still a little west as the NS wave crashes the west so it guarantees it dives in and we need phasing. It’s kinda bad luck we don’t get a stronger stj wave! But if we need to go it with a NS wave it takes more suppression to force that under us that a STJ wave. Different setups require different things.

We are in the panic room

I said it was precarious because an amplified wave could easily track inside our ideal box. But that’s not what’s happening. What’s happening is if the wave amplifies at all it’s pressing low level warmth way way way NW of the track even with an ideal track. This seems to be a repetitive theme where someone points out the imperfections to excuse why it’s too warm. I don’t get it! Yea I know it’s not perfect. I know we can still get snow when everything is perfect. Yes if we have a 1035 high over Montreal with a 50/50 and a locked in arctic airmass and a 988 low off VA beach we will get a big snowstorm. I know that! But we are almost never going to have that. You know what % of all those warning snows I looked at had a perfect setup? Barely any. The perfect setup ones were the 12”+ snows! We shouldn’t need perfect to get 5-8”. Most of those were flawed. Something wasn’t right. No high. Marginal airmass. No blocking. But the storm took a good track and it worked out. My point is lately a good track isn’t overcoming those flaws anymore.

I’m not out. Still interested. But I don’t like going into the last 100 hours needing a south trend on a NS SW. that’s not usually a good spot. But this is the kind of situation it could happen. We might actually want to root for a more suppressive flow. Yea it will minimize the potential some but if rather had a 3-6” snow than 1-2 and NYC gets 20”! The more amplified solutions might also be the further north ones.

Gfs is more amplified with the SW: good. But it comes across further north. Bad. It doesn’t matter how amplified it is if it tracks to our north. We need more amplified AND south.

Nothing impressive but at least it feels winters now

It’s been nice snow tv the last 15 mins but nothing that rivals the squalls we like to remember. Best squall we got here was actually in Jan 2020. Yes that winter. The only cold few days we had. We got a quick 2.5” from one of these. This one is tame. Just light to moderate snow mostly.

The thing is the people saying “you can’t be sure this one thing is due to warming” are right. All these examples in a vacuum can be dismissed as a fluke. But thats ignoring the preponderance of evidence when you stack them all together and superimpose them on the worst region wide snow draught ever and a snow mean that’s been dropping precipitously if you apply a linear regression to the data.

The NAM has it because it amplifies the coastal some where others don’t. If you can call 1010 amplified lol. So it’s probably wrong. But…and I expounded on this more in the panic room don’t want to derail this thread…but don’t we want a coastal to amplify off the outer banks? That’s why I was disturbed that a weak ass coastal east of the outer banks blasted a low level warm later NW of 95. Book worthy?

Yes but it’s a 1010 low that starts to amplify off the outer banks…so umm…. I have a longer reply in the panic room. It’s just one NAM run so no reason to over react I guess

Let’s not overreact to one NAM run. But well yes it’s that but look where the low is. 1010 east of the outer banks. If a weak low there is enough to destroy the thermals NW of DC even with arctic air around what are we doing? What are we even rooting for? Let me clarify. Yes DC is fine so long as it’s just the weak boundary wave along the arctic boundary activated by the jet crossing the boundary. And that’s great. I’m not complaining about a 1-3” snow. But if the second a wave actually starts to amplify in what’s supposed be our ideal location the weak flow associated with that immediately wrecks our thermals what’s the path to a legit big snow??? You do realize to get heavy snow we need an easterly flow! Other than when we get instability from a strong upper level wave tracking over us most snow requires overrunning and clash along the thermal boundary. But if our thermals can’t withstand even a weak SE flow how do we get a significant snowstorm? If a low off the outer banks pushes an arctic boundary NW of us…tell me exactly what are we rooting for if we want a big snowstorm???

The low levels are torched during the most critical 6 hours when the best precip is in the area. Ugh. That’s not something I expected with an arctic front situation. Another chapter in my book maybe!

Yes front is slightly less positive tilt and this allows the second wave to amplify a bit more and pull the boundary back southeast a bit just in time to save DC. This is a nice little bonus surprise trending. The big storm 3rd wave idea is dead dead. But guidance is bringing back the idea of wave 2 enhancement and along with the lead frontal wave the 1-2 combo could end up a nice event. A HECS by 2020s standards!