psuhoffman

It looks like its coming up now...but the 12-18 hours slower is offsetting a lot of the improvements up top from 6z. But then again 6z was a huge win so...that balancing act isnt necessarily a bad thing. But yea if the SS wave had the same timing as 6z this would have been a monster run.

It's starting to get its act together in the northeast gulf now...snowing in north Georgia at 168.

through 150 I still like 12z better than 6z. High is back over IN vs already over MD last run. Storm is slightly slower getting going but SS wave is more amplified and the NS flow over the northeast has a lot more confluence. Money frames are coming up though...

out to 133 the GFS is showing the two trends I want...more suppressive NS flow and more amplified SS

The high is also positioned further west which will be helpful later on

so far so good...as far as I can see so far both a better cold push AND a stronger STJ wave.

12z GFS slowed down and amplified the next wave (the one ahead of our storm threat) quite a bit. That is a good thing imo...but we need a healthy STJ wave that can amplify despite a more suppressive flow. That is the win imo. Rooting for a weaker STJ wave is kinda pointless since we need a qpf bomb for this to really work. Our win is to have both a stronger SS wave AND a more suppressive flow and let the two fight it out.

According to a press release I found the GEFS was upgraded to the FV3 core in 2020 with version 12. But perhaps one of our model experts could clarify how aligned the GEFS and GFS op are at this point. Regardless though I do think this is an example where resolution matters a lot. We know it's going to be very marginal and the lower resolutions models will struggle with getting the boundary layer exactly correct in a dynamic situation. And since that is the only win scenario here...I can see why the ensembles would struggle to see the snow threat more here. It would be a bigger problem if the ensembles had a completely different synoptic solution, suppressed or a cutter...but the fact several of them take a similar track to the op but simply are too warm bothers me a little less. I mean the whole March 22 thing bothers me plenty enough...just saying the ensembles being a bit warmer than the op isn't shocking imo.

The SS was suppressed by the NS. For now (the next NS wave is starting to get dangerously close) the NS is out of the way and its simply a matter of how much the SS amplifies.

I was just adding that in general.... there are many who are legit upset when the models can't nail down things at day 7 or 10. I guess the problem is that they run that far so people see it, and I kind of get the logical argument...why even have it if its useless. Back in the day most of the guidance only went to day 3 or 5. But on the other hand... pushing the limits is how we improve. And I don't find them useless as long as you understand you will see lots of permutations from each run at that range and you have to apply some experience and knowledge to parse out which permutations are more likely and know what is likely just a product of chaos.

They're infinitely better than they were when I started this hobby. But for some reason people's expectations have outpaced their improvements. In the 90's we would have killed for models to be as accurate as they are now to day 3 or even 5...but now we complain they aren't more accurate at day 7 or 10.

I finally had a chance to compare the guidance (euro/CMC/GFS) and the differences are minor for that range. It comes down to really insignificant (in a global sense) differences in timing, confluence, and amplitude of a scale that the models won't get right for a while yet. I don't see any compelling reason to say the euro is any more likely that the gfs or even a suppressed solution, of which there are still several options. But remember, even in a good setup, the odds from this range greatly favor a fail for the simple reason that (especially in this specific setup because of the time of year) we only have a very narrow range that is a win. We are talking about a box of about 50-100 miles at most...that we need the storm to end up tracking for us to get snow. The non snow solutions include EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD. So while I don't think the current evidence suggests any one solution is more likely than another... obviously if I had to take option A: the storm will end up inside this very narrow box" or option B, the storm will end up anywhere else on the whole planet, you would have to be really bad at math and geography to choose A.

It's not as bad as the mean looks... it's still far enough out in time that there are some timing differences, add in the outlier members that either have some super cutter from ejecting the wave whole (that won't work so we need not worry about it if that is what happens) or members that squash the wave totally...and it makes sense that we don't see a huge signal on a mean. This is actually a pretty minor feature on a global scale where a weaker wave (compared to those around it) in a deamplifying flow, attacks a leftover suppressed boundary. We kind of need a little ridging in front of it or it would likely be no storm at all given the fact its a deamplifying flow in the east at that time. The real issue IMO is how much energy ejects from the west...how quickly it moves, and how much cold is there to work with.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/04/less-stress-clearer-thoughts-with-mindfulness-meditation/

Haven’t even looked yet. It’s still too far out to be locked in every run. Even if it looks good we need a perfect track this late. Setup is there but if the wave ejects too amplified it will track to our west and that won’t work this late no matter how much confluence. If it ejects too weak it gets suppressed. I doubt guidance will nail down the final exact solution for a couple days yet.

Don’t spend it all in one place

It was still outside 100 when it started that move and it didn’t end up that far north. It tracked to southern oh but secondaried off NJ. Earlier runs had or track to KY then off MD. Biggest problem was they backed off on the cold push. The temps changed more than the track. Unfortunately we need so much to go right anymore to get snow that it can very much go wrong until the last minute with any one detail going wrong. But once inside 100 we don’t typically see huge wholesale changes like a suppressed system down off SC ending up a ticked into OC MD solution. Unfortunately going from a tucked off OC to rain only really necessitates about a 50 Mile NW adjustment. Our path to win has way less margin. Kinda like when the Commanders play the eagles. We saw it’s possible for them to win. But they have to play their best game possible and hope the eagles turn the ball over 4 times also. It’s hard.

Signal on ensembles less suppressed

This is fine. But it needs to make a move when it’s around 100-150 hrs. The track usually doesn’t adjust hundreds of miles on me inside that range. Change details yea. Huge shifts less so.

Ggem perfect track rainstorm lol

It had more confluence and a much weather SS wave. Could tell really early on it wasn’t going to work. But I’d rather it be showing this than an over amped wave at this range.

Gfs might be too suppressive this run

yes very, @CAPE pointed the SS dominant nature of this period also.

The reason for that distribution is because on the coastal plain accumulations this late will be limited...its just a reality...near sea level that close to the coast it just is...and you aren't going to get the usual higher ratio area of good snow outside the heavier bands to the NW of the low either because of the time of year...even in the higher elevations you still need rates this time of year... to see big totals we needed that low tucked just a little closer to the coast. During January that woulid have shown 6-12" over a large area...from banding on the coastal plain and from higher ratios to the NW. This time of year its death band or bust.

I warned my NYC friends that it was dangerous to get excited. The duel low on both those runs should have been a red flag.