psuhoffman

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%.

That’s exactly how I remember that discussion in Jan 2021 going. The GFS has an over reliance on its 6 hour forecasts in the next initialization which means it can take 24 hours to flush out a garbage solution.

March is always a wildcard. One of our worst warm Nina’s that was snowless before, 1976, had a big snow in March.

Man that wave spacing. I’d actually feel better if it was March trying to pull that off. That’s a classic mid March bowling ball storm look. But who knows. With the temps the way they are maybe the pattern behaves that way early.

Maybe. The Gfs idea is hinted at on the other guidance but nothing else gets to the most extreme solution we need. However remember in late Jan 2021 the Gfs did this same thing at about this same range (like 100-120 hours) remember this fiasco, this are from breaking that threat down What sticks out is how similar this is. West to east upper feature in a marginal airmass. Plus I remember then someone familiar with NCEP pointed out the way the GFS incorporates data from previous runs it can take 3-4 runs to flush out a bad solution. Sure enough after 24 hours it caved. Not saying this is that again. I hope not. But that sticks out in my mind as a warning not to jump in on the Gfs until other guidance starts to support.

87. Never seen snow melt so fast. I was 9 living near Philly. We got 14” but the next day had to go to Harpers Ferry WV for a baptism. Left early and by the time we got to to Delaware on 95 the snow was almost gone. When we arrived in WV there was nothing but patches in shady areas. I said to my uncle I was surprised they didn’t get more snow because we had a lot. He said they had 16” but it all melted by the time we got there! The next day we went on a hike in t shirts. The temp comp is valid. But that was a Nino with blocking. Also looking at anomaly maps The base state that year wasn’t quite as putrid as we have now but there’s no way to quantify that. Anything’s possible. But I’m sure we will get complaints if we do get 12” and it melts in 3 hours the next day lol.

bwi combined ensemble probability through 0z Monday 1”: 7% 3”: 3% 6”: 1%

No one took issue with you for your dissent or your analysis. They took issue with your unnecessary attacks which you still keep deflecting away from. So read these words. Fuck off

Your intent is irrelevant he correctly described your actions. No one is attacking you for posting your analysis and opinions about the weather. They’re attacking you for taking shots at others while doing it. Why was attacking storm tracker necessary to what you were trying to say? You couldn’t just give your opinion of the setup? You already said what you were doing. You were frustrated no one shared your opinion so you started launching attacks. You said so in your own post. Now you’re trying to play the misunderstood victim. You’re understood perfectly. The bolded part is the attack and why was that necessary? How did that add anything to your point? No one is missing this. We see it. I think it’s unlikely. I don’t think it’s worth getting excited over yet. I’m keeping my eye on it. That’s it. Why do you care what I or anyone else thinks is worth getting excited? You can analyze it and post about it all you want. How do these attacks on everyone else help at all? Oh wait you already told us. No one way paying attention so you started trolling to get people talking. So then don’t complain when you get called out for it. You got what you wanted.

Unfortunately rjvanals was right about the surface. It’s 34-37 across the area during the height of the snow. The depth map looks a lot worse for a reason. Yes 6-10” falls but at 35-36 degrees not much will accumulate. The real reason this is such a long shot is given the thermal reality we need the most extreme solutions, and even they are underwhelming, to have any shot. It’s not hopeless sometimes the extreme does happen. But in my experience when we need the most anomalous outcome in any setup to be correct it rarely works out.

I don’t know. 99% of what I’ve done is simply pointing out what’s already happened. It’s not necessarily predictive. But obviously you can make logical inferences and deductions from the evidence. What could overcome is if we get a year with a predominant flow off the arctic instead of the pacific. It’s just that we used to be able to snow in marginal setups with a mix of air masses. Lately we need fresh polar air. if that is the new reality it will severely limit our opportunities but we will get years with a more favorable longwave pattern to inject arctic air. This year isn’t it.

We aren’t standing in the rain. We’re looking at a screen probably from comfortable warm confines in most cases. And tell me, how do we analyze a snow threat without talking about temperatures? Really tell me how you want me to do that?

Don’t get cute. You didn’t attack me. You attacked Stormtracker. And defending him from your personal attack is not making personal attacks. Don’t try to pivot and make this about me now just because I’m an asshole and an easier target and you realize you can’t defend what you said to him.

Not much support on the gefs but I guess there’s a chance. Super long shot but not zero

Ok so you don't even disagree its a low probability threat which is all anyone here was saying and why we're not blowing up the thread and going stupid crazy. But you weren't getting the attention you wanted so you decided to launch an unwarranted attack on @stormtracker. Ya I think I get it. We haven't missed anything. IT HASNT SNOWED AT ALL... And no one has missed this threat. Its been talked about extensively. I made a post about it earlier today and why I don't think its likely. Others have posted on it. We just aren't getting excited about a long range low probability threat. If it gets inside 100 hours and starts to show up on most guidance (at the same damn time) then things will get active in here, but why are you so bent about the fact were not freaking out over an op gfs run at long range?

That’s not the worst comp ever. But I didn’t say it’s impossible. I estimated it as a once a decade type anomaly so going back to something from over 15 years ago doesn’t really refute the point that it’s a very rare unlikely type event.

Of course it’s not impossible. But my last post explained why it didnt leave me feeling too optimistic

This isn’t me trying to be a Deb but I honestly don’t see the 18z Gfs as the win you do. I see a lot of the same WTF BS I’ve been taking notes for my book a lot lately. Let me explain. First if all look at what the synoptic setup is BEFORE the run goes kinda crazy and pops out a once a decade solution. look ANOTHER mid latitude system with no WAA snow associated with it to the north and northeast of the system. Then it does this… Ya ok…sure. Be honest what’s the odds that happens? That’s a 1/10 years type anomaly there. And even with that look at this BS even with an amplifying system with a once a decade anomalous cutoff upper low slowly tracking under us it’s barely cold enough with rain mixing in all through the CCB. Ya it snows. And I can see why at a glance that looks like a W run. But what I see is it taking a ridiculous probably not gonna happen once a decade type progression to get snow and even still it’s like 4” in DC from what should be a MECS setup given the Synoptics and time of year. I don’t think that’s being pessimistic it’s just being realistic. Sure that as shown there could happen. It’s very unlikely but not impossible. Eventually we will luck into some crazy anomaly. And if it does I’ll get excited at some point. But in the larger scheme if that’s what it takes to snow we’re still screwed. That’s the kind of crazy anomalous progression places like Raleigh NC should need to get snow not here. Sorry if that’s too much of a downer after a “good” run but that’s how I see it.

Why you teasing them? Lol. This is why Ive been so confident we’re screwed all winter. The status quo temp profile is so warm that even on runs when almost everything goes perfect it’s still rain. Euro barely gives me like 2” of slop up here on a run with a perfect everything that should be a 6”+ easy. The only times we’ve been cold enough all winter was twice when a tpv was cruising by just to our north. But good luck getting something to work in that kind of flow. I think that’s one part some aren’t getting. If the temp profile is so atrocious that the only way to be cold enough is to have a tpv or some ridiculed amount of confluence right on top of us…ya ok. That’s not gonna work. We need to be cold enough when those features are actually further away giving waves room to amplify.

Actually the guidance looks pretty good… for my trip to Colorado.

The only way to get cold enough with a 560+ ridge over us is for such extreme confluence and suppressive flow that a shredded result is the most likely outcome. We went through this game last week. By far the most likely outcomes are a cutter or suppressed. And guidance was jumping back and forth and some though that was good because we just needed a compromise but that’s not how it works.

Or….just don’t react to it. If you improve over time it will stop. Responding just feeds into it.