psuhoffman

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

Euro wave 2 it is…

I like the 0z geps. Matches my pattern progression thoughts. wave 1 wave 2 deeper souther wave 3 further south and maybe most impressive given the lead

Thought you were on team “it’s just cyclical and bad luck”.

Lead wave continues to trend less amplified. I’m really liking that second wave more and more.

I said waves after have a better chance. Didn’t say wave 1 has no chance.

18z euro slight changes at 90 but their good. Less amplified. More zonal. 50/50 slightly west.

18z gefs really seeing it now too! As wave one trends less amplified (at least in the Midwest) it’s leaving breathing room for a wave that was getting squashed out of existence before on guidance.

Montreal and Quebec City are on the river and get pretty warm by April. Snowpack is likely to be gone. Same with the valleys in Vermont. The spine of the Green Mountains in VT will very likely still have snow. Places like Killington and Stowe. But even there is can get very warm at the base once into April. If you want to be sure to see snow go to NW Maine. Places around Sugarloaf will always have snow otg into early April and hold snowpack to May some years.

Fair. But we’re getting close to the max length of all prior periods even close to this bad. So if this continues much longer that argument starts losing validity

“It’s the pac” is a matter of degrees. But for those that want to stick to that, explain why we are doing worse wrt snow lately than previous -pdo periods when the pac was every bit as hostile as it’s been lately.

No on some members the secondary forms south enough to clip us as precip breaks out along the dying inverted trough. Boston would be in a bad spot in that setup as the low stalls under the block precip will focus SE to NW along the old boundary then shift east as it pulls away. Boston would be too far NE if that scenario played out.