psuhoffman

For now I am not. I think either we get things right and go on a tear or temps remain an issue and the rest of the season goes this way and we end up REALLY low...so no point changing. If we get to the "relax" with nothing AND the relax starts to look longer than expect that is when I will call uncle.

just a thought... we are about to get the canonical crazy blocking we expect at some point in a nino, but all the guidance is now targeting the upper midwest not the mid atlantic for the snow blitz we expect here. But...what if the warmer reality just means what we expect is happening...its just shifted north!

There were some key details that made that 0z run work. The TPV was elongated to the east as a lobe rotated around which compressed the flow some out ahead. Also, it split the energy of the trough diving underneath the TPV and had a trailing SW kicking the system east more. Those 2 little fluke details are what made it work because the trough axis is actually NOT good and the favored look for an amplified wave would be to cut too far west for us. And those little weird details are not something guidance could possibly get right from that range anyways. That's why I said this is not something I would feel optimistic in until very short leads. WIth the TPV there we would need some discreet details to break out way to mitigate the unfavorable trough axis with not enough confluence to our northeast .

Unless the TPV location changes, but unfortunately guidance seems to be settling in on a general location too far west...either cutter or suppressed are the two most likely solutions. There is room for a win but its a thread the needle solution we need with that TPV there. The op euro at 0z spit out that thread the needle solution so its in there as a longshot possibility, but its just that.

I still think we have a good chance to go on a run if we can just get some of the minor flaws out of the way. We've been flirting with really good looks but with just enough flaws to prevent it all coming together. 1957-58 was pretty high in my analogs and I see some similarities. That can be good or bad depending how you view what I am about to say. I will point out the good and the bad. December 1957 was warm But our area managed a fluke snowstorm the first week of December in an otherwise warm pattern. Not so sure that would even work now given how much December as a whole has warmed since then. A marginal warm storm during a warm pattern on Dec 4 probably isn't an option anymore. Other than that the only snow Baltimore had before February that winter was a 1" clipper in January. This was the mean pattern for January But all 3 major precipitation events that month were rain. The only snow was the 1" clipper. The reason is linked to the ridge centered near 50/50. Looking at each major qpf event that ridge there seems to have allowed an inside track despite what is otherwise a good longwave pattern for the month. But obviously February finally hit and the ridge migrated further north further away from the 50/50 space So the good is there is some precedence even if we strike out in the next 10 days that we could still be on track for a good year overall. We also could still see something come from the next couple weeks. We either need some luck with the interaction between the TPV and the wave around the 15-17th. Or we might get a shot after that as the TPV traverses 50/50. After that I think we relax for a bit before the pattern reloads by February. So in terms of the pattern progression we are still on track. But if we want to be skeptical...would 1958 even still work today? Am I using analogs that given the same longwave pattern imposed on todays warmer climate wouldn't lead to nearly as much snow? Would that early December storm in a warm pattern have worked today? I do think the Feb HECS would but that was a one trick pony month. The other 2 big snows that winter came in mid to late March and Baltimore had a low temperate of 33 degrees for both. If you warm that same scenario just 1C both would have been all rainstorms now. @Terpeast can probably say more conclusively than me, but there could be an argument that what we think of as an EPIC season, might have just been a one storm year with some minor marginal snow/slop events around it...kinda like 2016! Maybe when I look at the pattern from 2016 and say we were unlucky and should have done better...the real truth is I am imposing a historical "normal" that doesn't exist anymore to come to that conclusion and 2016 is what you get now. Even if that is true I think the odds we get at least one big hit are still very high, and I am not one who ever complained about 2016...that storm was so awesome it was worth it. But I know some do complain about that season. Lastly...the pattern has been what was expected. This has been the mean since Dec 25. We just have no snow to show for it. It's been too warm. This is the projected mean the next month Hopefully we get some snow from it as we take the same favorable pattern into the heart of our snow climo. But at the end of the season, if this ends up a fail...it won't be because the nino didn't couple, or "the pac" or any other BS nonsense. The pattern is taking on and projects to continue to have canonical nino characteristics that have lead to a lot of snow here though our history. We have already had several perfect track rainstorms. We are getting our "answer" can this pattern still work. So far that answer has been no. But we have yet to enter when it has produced the most prolific results historically. We will know very soon!

I referenced the MJO wave in my analysis. But its flying...is going to spend 7-10 days in the MC, it's not stalled and cycling there like previous years. By Jan 20th its exiting into the PAC and heading towards our favorable forcing. An 8 day MC traverse ending around Jan 20th is a really poor justification for "cancel the rest of winter".

GEPS agrees

This is what it actually looked like This is what the ensembles said from 5 days out Good luck trying to do better than that on a 5 day forecast. We KNOW global models underestimate mid level warming with these storms when there is no block and locked in confluence...we knew we didn't have that...anyone who was believing those snow maps from 5 days out and not realizing what was probably going to happen...well that is user error not the fault of the tools. They did an amazing job and I had a pretty good idea what was going to happen from a LONG way out. Like I said they are tools not a forecast, and most who know how to use those tools made pretty good forecasts IMO based on them. Weenie posts in this thread does not mean skilled forecasters actually expected a lot of snow in DC 5 days out.

I know you know, just agreeing...for the benefit of the same audience. Spell check is adding some humor to my posts lately

Since I highlighted the issues with the Jan 17th threat earlier I wanted to say it can work. It would just be a much higher probability if the TPV were located further east. But there is one example that worked with the TPV where the guidance has it, and its from this exact time of year and one of our nino analogs. Jan 22 1987 was very similar and worked out. So this can work, just would take lucky timing wrt the wave spacing, the boundary, and the phasing between the SW and the TPV.

It’s a temporary relax. The winter’s over nonsense was started by that clown Cohen. It’s a temporary response to the MC forcing as the mjo progresses and the epo ridge sliding over into Russia. The tpv temporarily traverses the pole but it’s still weak and will get displaced again quickly once forcing gets out of the MC imo.

If the guidance is right about the progression that’s the one that has the highest probability imo. The wave before it has a shot but unless the tpv shifts east of currently shown it needs a lot of timing and amplitude variables to go right. That look there is more classic for a wide margin of error threat where we can survive more synoptic details not being perfect because the long wave flow is set up exactly right.

There is a reason 50/50 is the sweet spot. It leaves enough room for a wave to amply behind it while also creating a westerly flow just above us so the system can’t cut. With the tpv west of there we have to play a balance act. Too strong and it squashes the wave. To weak the wave cuts. It’s a legit threat. But as shown a tenuous one. I’d be honking like crazy if we see that tpv trend closer to the canonical spot. Otherwise as shown it’s not a setup I’d feel good about until much closer leads because of the delicate balance being played there.

Details matter. That would be perfect if that tpv in Quebec were moving east towards 50/50. But it’s retrograding. Unless that gets further east than even the euro has it, we run the risk of a cutter or suppressed and are left at the mercy of timing and trying to tread the needle with the wave along the boundary.

We are in a -pdo so it’s easy to just “blame the pac” and we’ve spent long stretches of the last 8 years when it was the pacific. But I’ve seen troubling signs when it wasn’t. example look at the pacific long wave pattern there. Trough west of AK. Epo ridge. But the trough dumps west. Here… same. then… opposite configuration and it floods pacific puke across. So if both possible long wave configurations don’t work….no matter how the pac is aligned the trough dumps west. The wave lengths just shorten to do it. The only way lately we get a +pna is when there is a trough just off the coast flooding warmth across the whole country so that does no good! Imo the Atlantic is just as much to blame. That high constantly off the southeast resists a trough moving east. The wave lengths just shorten so the energy digs even deeper west. Even when the pac is aligned there seems to be resistance to a trough diving into the southeast. It’s not been impossible. We’ve had some periods that knock down the war. But it seems to be a bigger part of the problem that gets talked about.

Gfs was close. But again it stalled another wave before getting to where we need to cut off the WAR. If A was at B instead that would have been a HECS. It would give more room for the next wave to amplify and at the same time turn the flow over top of us to block a the next wave from continuing to gain latitude. basically it would promote a more amplified wave to try to come at us from the southwest while at the same time having it hit a brick wall in the TN valley and force it to turn east under us. That’s our big snow look. But so long as these tpv waves keep stalling under the block then rotating back and not progressing east under it into 50/50 it leaves the door open for the next wave to cut. Im not saying it’s going to do that. Just saying until one of these systems gets into the 50/50 and severs the war nao link the next wave is likely to try to cut if it amplifies.

This happens every crappy year. Usually right after the last legit threat for snow fails in late Feb or March. Seems we’ve skipped to that part of the annual cycle already.

Ok so we’ve reached the “scorched earth take no prisoners” part of the season already.

Omg yea! But I think maybe I wasn’t clear. I’m not saying that wouldn’t work. Look at that pac. It’s Fng perfect. And that +nao is displaced and elongated south to mimic the same effect as a nao 50/50. Not quite as effectively so it’s not as big a hecs look but that would be a snowy look. What I was saying is it’s unlikely we get that. Getting that pac look is gonna be hard enough in a -pdo cycle but to then also get that super rare elongated nao trough with a tpv in Quebec… I wouldn’t hold my breath to ever see that as a 2 month long locked in pattern again in my life was my point. On the other hand if we do get that kind of pac look we don’t need a crazy -nao. But i disagree we want a +nao either. 2015 only worked because of that odd elongated configuration and that’s not how it would likely play out again. But 2003 and 2014 snow we can get by with a neutral to decent Atlantic look and a perfect Pac. 2003 2014 While both years might have had a numerical +nao at times the h5 shows the Atlantic wasn’t hostile. The configuration was just displaced from a canonical -nao but we would all know that look was good and it’s not what you think of when you say +nao! Those looks can work just fine. But I don’t agree w chuck we want a big blue ball over the nao space. It never worked before 2015 and hasn’t since. That was a fluke imo.

@CAPE @Stormchaserchuck1 I would be thrilled if we got a run like Feb-Mar 2015. There were two storms in there I consider big. One in Feb and one in March. But I think 2014 and 2015 are awful examples of something to root for. I’ve called them fools gold. 2014 Dec to early Feb there was a lot of ridging over the top of the nao domain but because a strong. Tpv got trapped under it the pattern mimicked a -nao. We also had a perfect pacific that held for months which is just unlikely in a -pdo. March 2014 and Feb-March 2015 was a bad example because a tpv got displaced into Quebec. Extremely anomalously SE. and that also mimicked the suppression of a -nao 50/50 configuration. But in 75 years of records that I looked at of snowstorm after snowstorm there are barely any other examples of that. The fact those were our most recent cold snow Winters I think creates the bias that those are a viable long wave pattern to root for. History suggests they were flukes with very specific and rare details that made them work. imo it’s unlikely we will ever see that again in our life. Not saying we won’t ever see a epo pna driven snowstorm. But it’s unlikely we ever see a winter where that pattern leads to repeated hits and a seasonal win.

Since I can already hear the groaning when I say legit big snow I don’t mean hecs 20” storms. But what I mean is a legit amplified wave that drops 6” plus over a larger region wide area. Not some progressive wave that has a significant snow zone of 3 miles wide and even if we get lucky enough for it to how our area many will still be left unhappy. I’m talking about storms like…all 3 of the 1987 storms, the Jan 1988 storm. The late Dec 1990 storm. The early Feb 95 storm. Several 96 storms other than the blizzard. The Jan 2000 storm. Early Dec 2002 early Feb 2003 late Feb 2003 after the blizzard. Jan 2004. The back to back late Feb early March 2005 storms. Feb 2006. March 2009. The two storms right before snoemageddon in 2010. Jan 2011…. Storms that have a BIG areal coverage of snow because they tracked at us from the SW amplifying but were resisted by blocked confluence. That’s how we get a real wide win.

Thanks captain obvious. But a +nao isn’t exactly working either. Baltimore hasn’t had a 6” storm in 8 years! So assuming I want a BIG snowstorm and not just try to get lucky with more progressive waves..what do I want? With a +nao unless we get incredibly lucky with a well timed tpv rotation over the top there is nothing to suppress and prevent an amplified wave coming at us from the TN valley which is our big snow track. The only way we snow anymore is when we just get super lucky to have some progressive boundary wave take a perfect track by pure luck. What look to we want to give us a good chance for a legit Big snowstorm if you’re rooting against a -nao? What other mechanism can work?

Never mind

You’re arguing semantics. You were upset the epo was fading but it wasn’t a helpful epo was my point.

Not a pro but imo it depends how the mlk weekend likely cutter system evolves. If the TPV all dumps east suppression. If too much dumps west cutter. Ideal would be a split where 75% comes east but it hangs some back to later swing under and become an amplified threat.