psuhoffman

Ya those depth maps are good in lighter events but in heavy rates and marginal temps they can be way low. If it snows hard it will accumulate.

I’m not having that debate again.

Tucked

Wave is more amplified and a bit more phasing. My guess is it comes north a bit

Legit snow here now. Big flakes. 34*

I’m in the same boat but I’m also waiting to see how the pattern evolves after the likely cutter. If the eps is right and we get to that look by Jan 15th or so…a lot of the big analog years the majority of the snow fell after Jan 20 anyways. EPS is heading toward having the look we want by then. 66 and 87 had pretty much nothing in the cities before Jan 20. 87 there was a coastal storm that dropped like 6” here and 12 up in PA but was mostly rain in the cities right around the same time as this threat.

@WxUSAF @brooklynwx99 @Terpeast Also, it’s likely already heading where we want just might have to suffer one miss to our north first. Id be curious if the red tags agree with where I think this was heading That next wave is likely to dig towards to TN valley and 48 hours after this we have the mid Atlantic hecs look. Also in the pacific the split flow is taking shape and the pac jet is undercutting the ridge which will cut off the loading of the -pna. Yes systems will crash into the southwest but they will be cutoff and not going to pump a huge SER. Agree?

I might have to duck…but that’s likely shifting east behind a cutter however it leads to this which is VERY much a hecs look for the east coast. It just is likely the wave after the one you’re showing there. Now if I want to be picky that there looks like the ideal composite for a NYC to Boston hecs. The negatives are a bit north of where we want south of 40. But it’s going to adjust some from that range and it’s so damn close to perfect. And been trending that way for 3 days how.

It's close...but we need to get that ridge in the PAC into AK and the trough in the plains centered into the TN Valley... that is not a huge adjustment but that would make that a much better snow look. As is that runs the risk of being a cutter look even with the block.

I've noted this over the last several years, since the major model upgrades a few years back...guidance seems to make BIG changes somewhere in the 140-180 hour range, that seems to be where they start to pick up on the general synoptic idea. After that we obviously see changes but not like 500 mile shifts anymore usually. The final 72 hours we still tend to see a slow bleed north. Nothing close to back in the 90s and 2000s when storms would trend hundreds of miles north the final 3 days or anything, but a little bleeding. We want to get a little wiggle room now for that IMO. Frankly I am amazed by the progress. We are analyzing things at 140 hours that when I first started this you would be crazy to even look at until inside 72 hours. I've found, much like the NAM, that my forecasts are more accurate if I just ignore the ICON. I am not saying its wrong, is pretty much in line with other guidance inside the goal posts right now, just saying it bounces all over the place and will lead you off on a tangent just as often as the rigght direction. "Oh baby, I wanna get wit ya, and take ya picture..." Both rain and suppressed are still within the goalposts here. But if you told me we failed and asked how I would still say 60% rain 40% suppressed. We're still in the range where the ensembles have more weight and they look great. But also, we are at the range where things are settling in and I've observed, as others have pointed out also, we do sometimes get a wobble south or colder around now but 75% of the time things still bleed north the last 2-3 days. I like having a little wiggle room here. In my experience the time to worry, judging on how guidance has handled these types of systems the last 10 years, is if we start seeing runs show up that jack NC and southern VA. That's not what we want, the north correction is not hundreds of miles anymore. Even those end up trending north at the end...but not enough to save us. Remember Dec 2018...it went south and was showing a NC/VA line jack...then it did trend north enough to save Fredericksburg and Charlottsville but not enough for us. Having us on the northern fringes at day 5 is ok. I will worry if it starts to show a true miss to our south across all guidance. It really hurts to be on the same team with Webb on anything but I have to agree on this.

Get that place in Capon Bridge again.

Across all guidance there was in increase in the confluence ahead of the wave and so the thermals were significantly colder. The gfs didn’t trend as far south as the euro because it actually trended stronger and further NW initially with the SW and primary low but then the redevelopment gets forced further SE because of the colder profile. Euro was colder and a slightly less amplified SW so it made the biggest jump south. But the only thing I’m taking from this rum is the thermals. If tonight’s runs are correct wrt the colder profile over the top we have much more wiggle room and a significantly easier path to a victory here.

Antecedent airmass is COLDER!!!

I’ve noticed that also. You’re right about JB and 2003. He lived off the cred he got from that winter for years. Funny but ya know who else nailed 2003, Joe D when he was Dr Dewpoint at Intellicast. Now they teamed up on WxBell lol. Do you think JB actually forecasted better back then or was it simply he always predicts cold and snow and that’s the one winter where every time a cow farted there was a snowstorm or arctic outbreak?

The EPS has been on a heater for a while. If you include the weekly extension it nailed this current pattern almost perfectly from like 3 weeks out.

happy new year. GFS improved in the most important aspect. It’s actually slightly more amplified and further NW with the SLP on approach But the result is better because the antecedent airmass is colder! If this continues to trend colder over the top we won’t have to obsess over the exact amplitude of the SW or the exact track of the primary to the mile.

1) I was responding to someone else who asked me a question 2) you took issue with it for some reason which I think you just made evident by the bolder part above. 3)Every post after my initial one is your fault. Don’t start a conversation then say “why are we discussing this”. 4) This isn’t a fight about climate change but now I think I understand your issue. You think it is. 5) I’m not talking about our snow chances if it was 20 years ago. I’m taking about what would help this week. And that’s a colder airmass. That’s the trend we need. That’s what was asked to me. 6) We need the same thermals we needed 50 years ago. The temperature water becomes solid hasn’t changed! I DGAF about 20 years ago except to examine what setups we need to get snow NOW! 7) How you gonna objectively assess a snow threat and ignore temperatures? This became a drawn out thing because of you. You injected yourself into a reply to someone else. That’s fine it’s a public discussion thread. But you took one of the most ridiculous stances I’ve ever come across and kept doubling down on it and now that you have nothing left you turned to a personal attack and some silly “why you going on and on about this” argument when you’re the reason for the whole back and forth. This is the silliest most illogical argument I’ve ever come across on here. And frankly I think we’re arguing two different things. I’m addressing what we need to snow next weekend and you’re having some anti CC crusade. I’m not cluttering up the main thread anymore with this nonsense. If you want to reply please do it here but I’m done.

EPS scores significantly better than gefs at day 10 verification scores.

Some mood flakes a min ago when I was setting off fireworks with the kids.

Fringed

The gefs looks like hot garbage at the end. You are right if the gefs is correct after this threat hit or miss were likely punting until Feb. But do you belief the gefs over the geps and eps both of which show a very different look day 15-16 with heights already lowering west of AK and the pattern over N America better to begin with. Why choose the statistically worse guidance when it’s alone? Persistence?

I commute from Manchester to Baltimore 4 days a week so it’s not much better. A lot of the same reasons.

The disconnect between my snowfall and Baltimore is increasing lately. We won't talk about why. Do you commute all the way to DC from Westminster?

I used an example from January 7th also. I am not even making a warming argument here. I haven't said ANYTHING about this being too warm because its warmer now. I just compared the temps in front of this threat to what it looked like in front of actual snowstorms that came at us with a somewhat similar angle and wave amplitude. That's why I picked the examples I did. I almost used one from December. It wouldn't matter what time of year you still need a cold enough airmass in front of the wave if you want to get a big snow in DC. Once in a blue moon they can luck their way into a big snow with everything going right to overcome temps but that is a losing proposition way more often then not. The much easier path to a snowstorm in DC is to have a cold enough airmass in front of the wave. The DC area can also manage a smaller snow with "less" luck. But this is a pretty nice setup, the main limiting factor is the temps, as currently shown on guidance, are not really adequate to resist any strong WAA. The storm will create a boundary and try to follow it and without enough resistance to the WAA ahead of the wave it threatens to push that boundary too far to the NW for DC to get a snowstorm. I'm honesty shocked at the pushback to this. Make it 5 degrees colder in front of this and our chances of this being a big snowstorm go way way up, regardless of minor changes in all those other variables we are following now only because we need them all to be 100 perfect to compensate for the inadequate thermals.