psuhoffman

H5 tracks to Chicago then SE through OH and right over DC. I’d love to get that another 100 miles south but this is much better. Again the key is keeping that h5 south initially.

Surface temps aren’t out yet. I’m sure they are a problem. But this is a huge improvement in every way!

Euro way better at h5 compared to 0z.

It’s all improved so far. Meant to say “bit more confluence” not “but”

Those changes even more pronounced at 84

Hr 78 euro slightly improved. H5 seems slightly south. But less ridging. Bit more confluence to our northeast.

Is that how that works?

Said the person who is here too!

I guess if we want to be optimists there could be an ever so slim zone where it’s possible to get a hit from both. I think that would require wave 2 to slow down which was a trend on the Gfs. We would need more separation between the waves to pull off a double because wave 1 will need to be pretty darn amped and tucked for us to get any snow.

Unfortunately my fail scenarios are usually the best bet. It’s amazing…when a threat window appears I think “now how could this all fall apart” and 90% of the time things trend exactly to that!

Most guidance right now is living in my fail zone where wave 1 is strong enough to interfere with wave 2 but not good enough to help us. The trend is the other way right now but I think rooting against wave 1 amplifying is the way to go. Wave 2 has a much better chance simply because there would be less ridging in front of it. Wave 1 simply simply needs so much to go perfect to overcome that I don’t know how likely it is. Never thought it was that likely. But I’ll admit it’s a lot closer then I thought it would be around the day 5 threshold.

Just pointing out the scenarios.

This is the h5 track we need…from that control run that snowed on us

ICON is in between track 1 and 2 with the upper feature and predictably is a very close miss.

ICON is the fail solution...more amplified wave 1 but isn't cold enough so we get CCB rain lol....and it squashes wave 2.

@stormtracker basically this illustrates what we need.... This is 24 hours after those plots we were comparing...and its game over on the GFS because of where the upper low is. From here its going to track southeast because of the block but its too far north...the suppression it would take to even get that under us from there would have to squash the wave anyways. That wont work. The runs that produce a chance at snow here have the upper feature located near 2 on that map...with a SE track from there. NAM appeared closer to that track than 1 with that feature. I really think that is the key to this.

It's subtle but compare the trajectory of the upper level feature coming out of CO/WY on the NAM and the GFS. GFS NAM NAM is digging a bit and the GFS is lifting. The key to our success is the track of that feature...we need that to take a more amplified but further south track. Those are the solutions that lead to snow.

Something I've noticed looking at individual ensemble members and ops and what produces snow or at least a close call v runs that don't.... we actually want a more amplified wave BUT it has to be in conjunction with a more suppressive flow such that the wave is more amplified but is digging over the midwest not lifting. That is why I said I liked the NAM. Its a more amped wave but its digging. Yes the weaker primary waves won't wreck the thermals as much but the flow along the east coast is suppressive and the weaker solutions also fail to produce a secondary in time. The wave washes out and by the time it redevelops its way OTS. We need the perfect combo of a stronger wave with a further south track of the upper feature such that a secondary forms quickly and further south.

I kinda liked the NAM at 84. Nuff said bout dat.

Wave 3 isn’t so much impacted by this…but my fear with waves 1-2 are they split the energy. There is an in between spot where wave 1 is just amplified enough to squash wave 2 but still not enough to help us. I’m torn in what to root for. Doesn’t matter since the fact there isn’t a 12 foot snowpack on my lawn proves what I root for has no impact on the outcome.

Remember when some storm he had been hyping ended up just a weak wave and he said “it’s an inch but it could be the worst inch ever”.

Inside about 120 hours they tend to be very close which makes sense since the control is basically a lower resolution version. However, this has morphed into an inverted trough type setup and those are incredibly delicate and could produce more spread between the two. But I think there was value in posting the control. As much value as any single data point anyways.

Yes it can, there was even a significant early April snow that affected coastal NJ and DE a long time ago, but it takes a truly cold airmass and those are becoming rare even in mid winter lately.

There is about as strong a signal as can be at those leads for a storm around the 20th and given the pattern progression that one might be our best chance regardless of the date. Yes I know our climo is deteriorating daily.

Lol