psuhoffman

Like I said last night this setup reminds me of PD1. Now that was a max anomalous outcome so that doesn’t mean we get that exact outcome. But I expect models are underestimating the intensity of lift along the inverted trough as it slams into the confluence from the block. If that setup holds there will be some pretty good banding stretched NW along the trough from the surface low. It will hit a brick wall though somewhere. My guess is Philly ends up ok but it’s close...any further north though...

Chill I’m just teasing you. I’m probably your biggest fan in here so calm yourself.

We did it’s day 7 so it’s in the day 3-7 thread. Just be glad we have so many threats it’s confusing...that’s a new and good problem to have. Back in the day we just started a storm specific thread pretty early but now everyone is like NOOOO it will kill it because some decided it’s our threads and not our crap climo that kills storms. Short of going back to specific threads having short/medium/long range threads seems the best we can do.

Don’t sell yourself short

You are a stretch...memorable is debatable

Depends Jan 2000 was an east based block. It’s true west is better but it’s not like I’d kick an east block out of bed. It’s still a better pattern then no blocking.

I think we have AMPLE evidence that we’re losing snowstorms on the margins. We keep seeing crap like that in model runs. Some verify some don’t, but we’ve had multiple rain events over the last 5 years that weren’t perfect but I thought “that should have at least been some snow”. Doesn’t mean we can’t snow anymore. Just means it’s harder. Maybe the high has to be 1035 instead of 1032 on some similar setup. Or a marginal pac airmass that barely worked for a 32 degree wet snow paste bomb 30 years ago is a 36 degree rain event now. And yes it’s frustrating.

Inverted trough which draws moisture NW but also warmth. It’s likely at that range wrong and the low should just be adjusted NW instead of having that string out low along the trough. With a better closed low but further up the trough we get the moisture but without the warmth surging among the inverted trough unimpeded. Way too far out for those kinds of meso details.

It has a lot of pattern similarities to PD1. So that kind of system is max potential since that was the big kahuna example of that type of progression. It’s not likely to gain a lot of latitude up the coast. It does have room to amplify to the coast though but it’s likely to move more east then north. Originally like a week ago I thought that wave had a chance to ride the coast but the pattern is progressing the way I thought but slightly slower so the wave after might be more likely to be one that can turn the corner. But we don’t need that to get a big storm if we get a favorable upper low pass with an amplified system. The wave after is more likely to gain latitude along the coast but with that comes possible temperature issues. Way too far out to worry about it yet.

EPS supports another wave also but has it a little faster around the 31. Imo the window for a wave to amplify along the east coast is best between 28-2 or so. The chances to run the coast increases through that window as the blocking relaxes but the chances we lose enough cold starts to increase after the wave on the 28/29. By the 3rd the pattern has started to progress again (after retrogression this week) and the ridge might come too far east and close the window for a time.

Trend...it was totally squashed to a coastal SC storm 24 hours ago. Just like the old gfs it’s more amplified every run. This is typical gfs error.

It’s getting more amplified every run. It’ll get there. But wrong thread.

Yea I’ll give 30 miles...but not 31!!!!!

Both...it’s not nearly as cold or expansive as you would expect given its origin. It’s easily bullied by the southerly mid level flow of a relatively weak wave. That’s sad.

We can afford to shift that 30 miles south...let’s be gracious here.

That NS wave really makes this harder then it should be in this setup. And that’s the kind of crap you can’t see from range. But even with a weaker solution it still damages the thermals ahead of the southern wave. If that NS wave simply didn’t exist that would be a really simple WAA snow setup. This before the NS wave is still pathetic for an airmass that was directly from the Arctic but it’s decent. It’s enough. but look what the flow under the NS wave did... we’ve lost the mid levels before the SS wave is even approaching. Now we have a double bind. We need cold to press back in but we also need an amplifying wave to get good moisture. That double bind is why we see such a limited scope to the snow on most runs and why this won’t be the kind of expansive snowstorm it could be in this setup if the NS hasn’t wrecked the thermal profile in front. It also doesn’t help that even a direct shot of Arctic air isn’t really all that deep to resist a fairly weak wave.

Way less ridging this run

Truth is both north and south are equally a threat depending on how it interacts with the TPV. No phasing to pump ridging and it could get suppressed. Too much interaction and it could cut. And with such a relatively small snow zone it doesn’t take much either way. The one good thing is when it’s not easy to decide which is the bigger risk (north v south) that often means you’re in a pretty good spot.

There is a tpv lobe coming across Canada. I remember a wave early March 2014 that was supposed to be a big snow in PA then got suppressed by a tpv lobe coming across Canada. No two situations are the same but how that interacts has a huge bearing. Runs that partially phase that feature with the NS wave go north. Runs that have no interaction it acts to suppress.

Yep...slight shifts take you from bullseye to fringed when the scope is so narrow lol. Obviously I want it to snow in my yard but if I’m going to get fringed I’d rather it be to the south so at least DC finally gets a hit so I’ll take south.

The gfs is handling the progression completely different then other guidance. This isn’t a case where it’s just north or south or more/less amped then the consensus. It’s following a totally different course. It’s likely at this range that ensembles based on this it’s physics would do the same. Right or wrong we’re not gleaning much from them in this case.

You found time to post the suck ass gefs and used suckiest ass run of all the recent suck ones too.

@Weather Will made us suffer through 800 probability maps like that and doesn’t post this one??????