psuhoffman

That is the axis I want to see!

Agreed, l not sure I like the orientation of the TPV there. It’s stretched E-W we want to N-S that’s what the better runs have so energy can dive down around it (dig in) and phase. An E-W orientation directs the flow w-e under it instead of amplifying the trough. But…it can still work like this run did IF the western tail rotates around and amplifies and tilts the whole thing on its axis. That’s actually a more upside idea. But if it doesn’t pull that off the way it’s oriented can just shove the whole thing off like the GFS. This is a boom or bust setup kinda.

ehh I spoke too soon saying it was "better than 6z" the upper energy is way weaker and we get no "part 2" with this, its just a quick WAA wave which that part was better then nothing else and its a lot further from actually being a big storm. The only good was the location of the upper low, but it was way less amplified and positively tilted with offset that one good trend. Let's see what the better models have to say. As long as the GGEM and Euro don't go this way I'm not worried...gfs is bouncing around.

The upper low is further NW but its also more positively tilted with a flatter flow over the top which offsets. In the end similar but slightly better result than 6z but worse than 12z. I still think its focusing too much on the southern piece and killing off the northern one too much but this run with the positively tilted upper low that would make more sense.

About 96... the upper low isn't as amplified and isn't digging quite as far south...those things limit the top end potential here...also its late Feb not early January although we have an arctic airmass to work with so not sure that matters too much.... BUT...in terms of the storm type and evolution they are similar in other ways...with a STJ wave timing up with an arctic front above it and a TPV lobe breaking off and diving down behind the wave. If you look at the surfact map at 114 hours and compare it to the day before 1996 they look very similar. Not predicting the same outcome...just identifying similar storm progressions in the past. Models struggled with the phasing between the waves in that system also but that was 30 years ago so they should do better now you would think. That might mean catching on at 100 hours instead of 36 hours out.

Gfs is hard to judge because it jumped from being the furthest SE (other than Gem) to way NW then over corrected SE again and has been correcting back NW. icon was consistently SE. not as much as the furthest SE gfs runs but it never adjusted NW until recently.

This

Something I've noticed guidance doing on some runs which limits the outcome but I think might be a common error...as the wave approaches there is a duel wave structure with a wave along the arctic boundary associated with the upper low and a wave down along the gulf coast with the STJ. As the whole system progresses east some runs (this latest ICON and last GFS) are focusing too much on the STJ wave and having that wave amplify and race out ahead of the real energy which is along the arctic front. I think that is wrong. I think the main wave is the one along the arctic front which has much better mid and upper level support and that one takes over, amplifies, transfers to the coast and we have a more connected phased system not the strung out disconnected one some runs are showing. I think famously this was the error in 1996 which was why guidance was too far south with that system all week leading up.

Lastly, the ICON is weirdly disconnected between the upper level energy and the surface, if it were to correct that its a bigger run, without needing any major track adjustments. Just need the storm to be more "connected" at all levels, better organized is all.

did you miss the LAST run where it gave us NOTHING! why are you setting the bar at some obsolete run 4 cycles ago? And frankly this run gives me more snow than that one did...it was a bomb for the coastal areas SE of 95 but it wasn't THAT good for places NW of 95. This run was the most widespread snowstorm its shown on any run for our whole region and other then one bomb solution 24 hours ago a huge improvement over the last run which is what we usually compare a model to.

I keep an eye on other areas for skiing purposes...and to give you an example for a week the ICON was way SE of most other guidance with the storm this weekend up in New England, along with the Euro AI BTW...showing the storm redeveloping off the coast v cutting up into upstate NY, showing the rain snow line never getting into VT when other guidance had it getting all the way into northern VT almost to Canada. Guess which models won and the ICON finally caved last night on that...now has the storm cutting with the mix getting into northern VT. You have to apply the models typical bias to their solutions when judging what is or isn't a "good" run. It's different if the euro which is the most amplified model typically is weak and progressive. We want to see the euro cranking up some 970 monster. The ICON...its find if its weaker since thats its typical error.

Ya'll are funny, that was an ICON version of an MECS considering how progressive and dry it typically is...and ya'll calling it a scraper

I am NOT the arbiter of what others should want or be happy with... just for me so long as I get enough snow to feel like it was a "big storm" (usually thats around 8" or so) while obviously I want to be the jack and it stings a little if somewhere else gets a crap ton more...it doesn't ruin the storm totally the way getting some 1-3" fringe does. At least it feels like I got a legit storm even if its 10" and not 20" or whatever. A couple of those 2021 storms I got like 10" or 12" and not too far away got 30" and yea it stung a tiny bit but I enjoyed the storms and was happy once I got over not getting the crazy stupid totals and let it go and accepted I was getting a very good MECS level snow and not a HECS.

I mean there is a difference between getting 8” and being upset someone else got 12” and getting 3” when others got 8-12”. I’m fine with not being the jack so long as I get into the “meat” of the storm and not another fringe

That’s exactly why I wanted an amplified pattern

@Terpeast isn’t allowed to stay up for the euro ever again

It's not a HECS but it is a KU

That is normal in a nina, we get SECY/MECS and northeast of us gets HECS. If that happens have to just focus on what we get and not cry about Boston

Its 6-10" for us... I think in a nina we have to be ok with that and not worry about "but NYC"

GFS is fine where it is now...its latched onto the correct progression up top and now has a similar storm to the UK/GGEM/Euro and its about getting the location and strength nailed down. And its close enough we aren't out of it for the jack either...

Maybe I don't like the fact we've lost about 20% of what was already a pretty pathetic snow climo... I'm not celebrating the fact we still have the remaining 80%...guess I'm a glass half empty kinda guy on this but I don't celebrate that we still get something we already had...I lament that we lost something we used to have

I never thought we would fail THAT way...but now that guidance is on the same page with that we need to see how they converge on a solution. Right now just SE of us is the consensus and I want that to change in the next 24 hours

If we get a full latitude trough in the east that is actually colder than a high latitude block with a trough under it.

no one has said we "lots the ability" but cold snowy patters are happening less. Less not never. We need a hit, no moral victories here