psuhoffman

Why does everyone think I’d be unhappy with 3-4” of snow? Maybe if it was a fringe and 20 miles away got 12”+ then ya that kinda sucks. But I was thrilled with that 3-4” storm I got in December! When I’m analyzing patterns my goals are big. I can’t control anything so why not look for signals for big storms? But that doesn’t mean I’m unhappy if we get a regular snow. And it’s not like we’re getting those anyways. It’s not been snowing at all lately. My issue with progressive waves isn’t that they aren’t a HECS. It’s that they typically have a narrow zone of snow and the patterns that produce them are rarely going to lead to a snowy season. Rooting to get lucky with those is basically setting our high bar for the season at below average for the region as a whole. Ya maybe someone gets lucky to hit a couple and beat climo but as a whole we don’t get snowy seasons that way.

Frankly we've already had the pattern since Xmas...just not the snow yet

Well this is it... we are getting the exact pattern we wanted from this Nino and its lining up exactly with our best snow climo. Next 30 days on EPS Temps If we don't get a lot of snow out of this it won't be because we didn't get the nino pattern we wanted.

I see what you are saying, and historically I would be more excited...but given recent trends do we think that would still be "cold enough"? Also, its a deamplifying pattern with no real thermal boundary in the east, just a big dome of decaying cold under the NS. Not sure how likely getting an organized storm there would be. Anything that amplified would seek out the real thermal boundary way up to our north. So while its not the torch you might think looking at the H5 I am not enthused at the chances of snow there either. BUT...the pacific is already aligning into the PERFECT look by day 15 to begin the process of getting back to a good snowstorm threat window by early February, that is the best thing I take from that day 15.

I agree with everything you said, but "better" is a low bar given what the recent results have been lol.

Having a significant cluster of "wins" is a huge deal. The GEFS mean looked similar yesterday but it was a false flag because it was a compromise between two bad solutions. This indicates the euro thinks we have a legit shot.

I agree with this, except I am not sure there is an easy path to a decent snow with a less amplified solution either. And I don't just mean a HECS...if the STJ/NS energy misses the phase I don't see much of a path here. Without a phase that STJ energy will get stretched and is washing out under the NS flow. Nothing to turn the flow and we all know how a pure SWFE here goes with those 4,000 ft ridges to our SW. There isn't room here for the STJ to go it alone. We need phased. SO imo the "easy" path to a win is root for that 50/50 feature to trend better then we can survive the phased solution. If the 50/50 feature fails I think this has a VERY low bar. Either a phased track to our NW or a really weak or completely non event would become the two most likely scenarios.

I REALLY like that mean but I would have to dig into the members and see how we got that mean. Is it the average of two camps...cutters and suppressed, which was a false singnal on the GEFS a day ago, I just didnt want to spoil the mood. Or is there a genuine camp of "win" solutions in that mean. Big difference. Unfortunately I have to finish up some reports right now and wont get to really look that deep until later but curious about that.

@Ji TLDR version...there are multiple ways for us to get F'd

Agree with Brooklyn and CAPE here. Ji, its complicated. It's always a balancing act with multiple variables on either side of the scale. The objective is to get a wave to track just under us with cold in place. There are multiple ways to do that. Some less complicated, some more so...we want to root for the least complicated way usually. Last time the general track of the wave was set in stone pretty far in advance. It was a less noisy setup. The track of the surface feature was perfect...but it was fairly weak and we didn't have any blocking in place to suppress the mid level warming ahead of the trough axis. The one thing that could have fixed that was a cold thermal profile going in, I've seen much worse setups work but required more cold. So IMO the simplest problem was not cold enough. But we could have obsessed over the 100 other tiny details that could have been changed one way or another also. This time...the equation is different. It's a much more amplified situation. We have a colder airmass but we also have a really strong TPV centered right on top of us which could really amplify and pull a storm to our NW if other things don't go right. Not every situation is the same and requires the same solution.

yup

not really... or are you going to make the same mistake as many did with the last "threat". The 50/50 moved out too soon, there is NOTHING to stop the mid level southerly flow, the low tracks a little too close given those first 2 things...the exact solution the euro is showing here would NOT end the way you want it too, it would trend the same exact way the last how many of these threats that looked good if you only pay attention to a clow snow map did. But this one has more potential to trend better given some of the other details here. There is more cold around. There is a 50/50 which is a new feature actually and if it continues to trend stronger could change this equation. There is a lot of stream interaction that could change the equation. The last event was much more simple and locked into a general progression at range than this one is. But this run exactly as is was not what I want the final solution to be or the snow will end up NW of us. We could get a nastier ice solution though with more cold around this time from that kind of progression.

on the whole I like some of the changes... I want to be in a position where we can root for a more amplified solution not against it, so getting more confluence and a stronger 50/50 feature in front and a more positive tilted alignment of the whole features initially, puts us in that position where we now want a stronger solution possibly.

It's messy, but given all the players here I don't expect to see any consistency between runs. But one thing I REALLY like is the last couple runs of the euro trended this way and now this run completely splits the TPV and ends up with a peice in the 50/50 space. IF that part of this is real it increases our chances of a win if the other parts line up later on. WIthout that 50/50 feature...even if the other parts come together we could still lose with a cutter. If we trend towards a nice 50/50 feature then we can just root for a more phased stronger amplified wave...simple, without having to root for 10,000 little things to play together nicely. Just my take on this so far.

Differences better to our northeast but more phasing earlier out west. Wash? Dunno

So far...that TPV extension rotation through 50/50 is still there and maybe even stronger...but the two features diving around the back of the TPV are phasing earlier...thats potentially not good if the 50/50 feature moves out it could cut more.

Since my questions and tangents often seem to send the wrong impression...The 12z Guidance has been pretty good on the whole IMO. Don't let my quest to understand this one specific phenomenon skew the perception. I feel even better about our snow chances now than 2 hours ago. This is purely an attempt to understand something on my part.

@CAPE I have a theory but I wanted to see if anyone else has the same explanation before I put it out there. I am in no way confident in my theory... I am mostly just searching for WHY this same progression has happened a lot. And no the op gfs doesn't mean it WILL happen, but the fact its showing up means its still in there as an option and since its been happening often lately I am trying to understand. It's not something I saw a lot of historically. How can I forecast better if something new is happening a lot and I don't understand the why behind it?

Look at my last post...all those snows were in a -PDO.

There should be a trough there yes...but it should then get pushed east because of the EPO ridge dumping all that cold into the CONUS along with the blocking regime to the east...through history what happened was during a -PDO period that pac energy would crash into the SW, the NS energy would dive in above it, and then the trough would push east under the block. Look at this composite of the loading pattern before 5 of our big -PDO Nino snowstorms...this was the model for what I expected to lead to our snow this winter... Now look at that GFS run The only difference between the two longwave patterns there is the SER which is because that trough in the west digs to kingdom come, phases with the NS and cuts off instead of kicking east. That is what I am asking. The same longwave pattern in every way that used to lead to a trough in the east and snow threats has been leading to a HUGE SER lately. Why?

OK but people said that same thing a few times recently and then it happened. Maybe this time won't. I am NOT saying this is how I expect it to go down. But no one has ever answered WHY this keeps happening lately. Typically there is just a lot of "its a bad pac" nonesense, and its easy to get away with that because the pac has actually been awful most of the time the last 8 years with a Nina type dominant central pac ridge. But those fail periods don't bother me. Yea it sucked but when I saw the pattern coming in Dec 2019 and cancelled winter...I fully expected us to get no snow given the way the pac looked. That was expected. There are lots of other examples of those periods where yea it sucked to be stuck in a nina no hope pattern for us...but we SHOULD fail in that. But what bothers me is several times in the last 5 years we did get a period where the longwave pattern was GOOD and energy still dove into the southwest anyways. The problem was NOT the pacific, there was no huge central pac ridge...the longwave config there was good, but the same result. I showed this once last winter and no one explained it. How the pacific longwave configuration flipped completely opposite but yet the trough out west remained in the same damn place. The wavelenghts just shorted so the energy could still cut down into the SW regardless of what the upsteam pattern in the PAC was. That is what I want an explanation...why lately has there been a tendency for energy to cut into the west no matter what the Pacific longwave pattern upstream of it is?

@Bob Chill @Terpeast @WxUSAF @CAPE @brooklynwx99 Ok team...please save my sanity and help me understand WTF is going on here. And yes I know its a long range GFS op and unlikely to go down this way, BUT I have seen this actually happen several times the last few years so the point is why does this keep happening not whether this one run will or wont go this way. Look at this BEUTIFUL longwave setup Absolutely PERFECT pacific here, trough axis west of AK, huge beautiful EPO ridge, cut off pac energy (4) about to slide into the SW, old TPV sliding northeast towards the 50/50 space on the altantic side. Given the longwave pattern you would expect 1 and 2 to dig south into the plains and 3/4 to interact then slide east in this split flow. Right? But look what actually happens with 1/2/3/4 Depsite an absolutely PERFECT pacific AND atlantic longwave pattern, despite everything Ive' ever seen through history until the last few years...they all dive south/southwest and phase into a monster trough in the southwest somehow...dirictly UNDER the EPO ridge. This get's back to the argument I was having with chuck the other day where an EPO ridge has done us absolutely no good lately because instead of the cold coming in due to it pressing east which is historically what is supposed to happen, the wavelenghts just get incredibly short and whatever NS energy comes down just dives southwest and cuts off into the southwest UNDER the EPO ridge. It gets even more ridiculous from there So by the end of the run, dispite a picture perfect longwave configuration on both sides..a beautiful green land block, a perfect pacific and atlantic longwave configuration...we have a huge cutoff vortex in the west and a huge SER. Again...this is not to say this WILL happen...but I have seen this ACTUALLY happen several times the last 5 years or so. WHY? What am I missing here? Why is that longwave configuration leading to all that energy dumping into the west? I am tired of people just saying "its the pac" The pacific longwave pattern is perfect there...that trough shouldnt be there. Please help explain this.

12z GFS offered another way to fail lol....fails to phase threat 1. TPV stays west intially to suppress the next wave. Then it does slide east into the perfect spot...but a NS SW dives down from the north pole and dives southwest!!!! and phases with a system in California and cuts off on the west coast pumping a huge ridge in the east before anything else can come along. I have NEVER seen that before ever...a system that starts out over the north pole...with a trough in the east and an EPO ridge...dives southwest and cuts off along the west coast. WTF

it was close to a storm day 10 but just missed out on lining all the parts up. But it falls into the category of the GFS, doesn't phase the storm around the 17th so it rotates the TPV west and that is a suppressive look, it also could even open the door to another cutter if something were to phase. I know that sounds counter intuitive, how can it both be a more suppressive look AND more likely to cut. Because if you put the vortex over the upper midwest like that...any weak wave is going to get squashed. So we need something to phase for that to work. But if it does phase...with the trough anchored that far west...and without something in the 50/50 space to suppress the flow along the east Coast...the storm could cut north west of us. We are again, left needing more moving parts to go perfectly. And sometimes they do. Sometimes you just get lucky! But man I would feel way way way better if we could just get that TPV into the 50/50 space.

That took one of the craziest evolutions of all our HECS storms. A ridiculous 50/50 at exactly the right time despite a positive NAO, a 1040 arctic high in the exact right spot/time, and a STJ wave came along at the perfect time to take advantage but it was strung out initially so that it didn't push too far north as the block departed. There are no other examples anything like it among our 15" plus snowstorms and I would NEVER predict something like that again. Could we get a more modest overrunning event though, something like Jan 2004 comes to mind...sure. But the same general setup we need for a bigger storm is the same one for those. It's just in the lesser overrunning events we were lacking a stronger wave, or the confluence was too strong, or something went wrong to prevent a coastal from amplifying after the initial WAA precip, or like in the case of 2004 the coastal developed too late for us so we got WAA then missed out on part 2 of the storm.