psuhoffman

This is kind of like trying to get a snowstorm the last week of March or first week of April. It’s possible but we need a lot to go right. But if we’re ever going to get snow this year we’re probably gonna have to get that kinda lucky.

It does. Follow the track of the upper low. We need that to swing through VA just south of us. That’s key 1. Without that nothing else matters. The primary surface low is irrelevant since the only way we snow is with dynamic cooling under the upper low. Get the h5 low to cut through southern VA and then we just have to hope it’s amplified enough and we get lucky with meso banding to dynamically cool enough.

It was a definite improvement. It kept this in the "worth bothering to keep an eye on" category for another day. But I dunno... I reserve "great" for something more than a run that says we have a 20% chance of snow. But if we're grading on a curve this year maybe.

12z snow probabilities for BWI including all 3 ensembles 1": 18% 3": 15% 6": 8% The relatively close spread between 1/3/6" is expected given the all or nothing dynamic nature of this event. Overall odds improved from 8% to 18% from 0z to 12z so this was a move we needed to even be in the game at all. We need to see continued improvements but given the very marginal thermals not sure we would ever get this into the high probability range until very short range since ultimately to work we need some luck with banding features and that is never going to be a high probability thing on guidance.

Yea its "better" but the upper low mean track is through NC, we really need it to be through southern VA. We can't afford any easterly flow given the already problematic thermals.

I'll post them when it comes out in a few mins

Yea. I think most of us have been around long enough and seen enough to look at this and see what it is...a super long shot but a non zero chance in an otherwise shit the blinds period so we are keeping an eye on it because WTF there is nothing else to talk about other then crazy speculation about March.

There was a huge ridge over us which made the flow between it and the TPV to our north impossibly suppressive. If there had been a trough in the east we might have been able to work with one of those waves...but with that ridge everything had to try to ride over it which put it right into the confluence/shred factory. I know the point you are trying to make wrt precip but its more complicated than that. The setup was all wrong regardless of the precip. With that ridge where it was the only way we could get cold enough was to have that TPV right on top of that and that also made precip impossible. Had there been precip it meant the flow relaxed and it would have probably been rain. You aren't wrong, but its only half the equation. We need both equally. If the only way to be cold enough is to have so much suppression you can't get precip that wont work. This is a totally different setup though, and it could work if we get a strong enough storm to take a perfect track, long shot as it is. But not sure we want the trough deeper...we have no antecedent cold, we wont survive an amplified system to our south pumping easterly winds here. We need the H5 low to track west to east just under us. I don't see any other way for this to work.

I was exaggerating. The 3 main things we need are for the system to be more amplified than the euro/gfs/cmc show at 12z, for the upper feature to track about 200 miles north of where it is on the 12z guidance and then hope we get deformed to death enough to dynamically cool the otherwise putrid boundary and mid level thermals.

The main thing we need is for it to track through southern VA not SC. But yes then we also need it to be more amplified and the colder solutions to be more correct and the moon to be aligned with Venus and Neptune while the solar energies are low,

See this is what happens when you try to be positive, you end up looking like a fool.

It's not that far out anymore...we are well inside the range now where guidance has been pretty good at beginning to hone in on the track. This is not to say adjustments wont happen and especially in a delicate situation like this...but we aren't 200 hours out where its likely to shift 500 miles anymore.

You’re out further than me so I’ll shut up. It looked better to me at like 90 hrs

Looks better than the Gfs/cmc to me so far. More like ukmet

Still waiting for the EPS but the combined probabilities for 1” at BWI from the GEPS and GEFS is 18%

What was that Doctors name again?

Why does everything have to be extremes? When someone say's they don't think it will work that does not mean it has no chance at all. There is always a chance. But its about probabilities. We don't forecast based on "maybe if we win the lottery of weather". Look at the preponderance of evidence. The only solutions that show snow each run are the most extreme solutions. The fringe outliers. It's been that way for days with this threat. It was one run of the ICON, then one euro run got kinda close...there was on CMC run a few days ago and more recently the GFS op. Within the ensembles there are like a few members showing snow. The vast majority of evidence says it won't snow. Maybe because the track isn't good (12z GFS/CMC) or maybe the track ends up perfect but its still too warm (UKMET and a few Euro runs). But if you add up all the possible fails (not perfect track, too warm, H5 isn't amplified enough) the probability it doesn't work is way higher than if it does. That's not saying it cant work out...its just making astute observations of the situation. Of course we want that, its the only way we have any chance at all... but we've seen way too many near perfect track rain solutions over the last few days on this to just ignore that with a "give me that track and it will work out" attitude. It could work out...or it could be too warm. Add in that we might not even get the perfect track and an amplified enough h5 cut off and the odds still greatly favor this not working out. That's all the "debs" are saying imo. Not that it has no chance, and not that it will never snow again. Ill run the probabilities for anyone interested once all the ensembles come in.

Agree, now want me me tell you how this ends for ya?

That’s how far we’ve sunk lol

@Ji I’m becoming increasingly optimistic we do get a legit “winter” period in March. We had a precursor weak SSW even followed now by a more significant one. These scaffolded ones tend to yield results more often. And it’s timing up with the MJO heading towards more favorable phases. I know some will deb it because it’s March but snow is snow and I’ll take it in June if that’s when we get it.

I'm sorry. To be clear I am not frustrated at you, and I am very sorry my frustration came out in a post directed at you. That was not fair. You're just doing your job. I thought when I offered to stop posting and let them vote it would put a stop to the whining. Either the majority wanted me to stop and I would, or the majority wanted me to continue to post and the others would see that and stop complaining. But obviously it doesn't matter.

@AtlanticWx the main thread is an analysis thread not a "digital snow fiesta" thread. We actually have a thread for that where we simply post models that show snow and celebrate. My goal is to be accurate and improve my analysis of the weather not to provide a safe space for those having emotional issues because its not snowing. My favorite forecaster was by far Bob Ryan, because he didnt blow smoke up our ass, the others teased us over and over but I knew not to get excited unless Bob was on board. I don't need fake BS optimism I want the truth. And the truth is I am not pessimistic enough. I bust high way more than low on both seasonal and individual storm forecasts. I was too optimistic this year...I said it was going to be bad but when I submitted my seasonal forecast I went below avg but probably not enough below! I was more positive about the mid december threat than I should have been. It failed...I was WRONG when I said it looked good! I still need to learn to be even more reserved and skeptical of snow because the goal is to be right not to spread false hope. We have a digital snow thread for that! We have plenty of people who make optimistic posts everytime any model shows snow. You can read JB. Put me on ignore if all you want is a daily affirmation. I offered to shut up and said I would respect the vote and it was 5-1 in favor of me continuing to post my honest analysis so instead of the handful of people who don't want that continuing to complain and whine everytime I post why dont you just ignore me since the majority wanted me to continue to post.

It looks very good at h5 but its running even warmer in the mid levels than the 6z GFS and that was barely able to get cold enough to snow with extreme dynamic cooling. That could have been a big problem, no way to know without seeing it play out. We need two things here...we need both the more amplified h5 solution and perfect track but we also need the colder solutions to be correct also. Remember we have seen plenty of "perfect track" rain solutions for this even over the last week or so its been teasing us off and on. I agree the NAM looked like it was about to have a perfect upper level pass... but not so sure the thermals were going to work from how torched things were at 84 hours.

Enjoy what? There is a thread for "digital snow". I thought the main thread was for actual analysis. Or do you want this to just be a circle jerk of "look at this model showing blue yay"? ETA: Mattie if that was a joke sorry (I missed the smile face) but some definitely aren't joking. @mappy the defense is in there because the attacks are in there. Frankly this is ridiculous. Its the same 5 or 6 people complaining and whining every-time anyone says anything about warm temps or skeptical of snow. That is an analysis thread not a digital snow thread and its not a safe space to emotionally support people who are full tilt over not getting snow. They need to suck it up and deal with it and not shit on people who are making objective analysis just because its not what they want. And as for me, I gave them a chance. I said I would leave and stop posting my analysis if that is really what people want, and it was 5-1 in favor of me continuing to give my honest opinion. Yet the same handful of people continue to whine and complain everyday!

I can’t update the GEPS part of the equation but substituting the 6z eps and gefs the probability of 1” at BWI increased from 8% to 15%.