psuhoffman

NW side is high potential either way... Something to note, both the GFS and Euro have had that duel band structure and I believe that will be true...but the Euro is keying the heavier snowfall in the NW band, and I also believe that is true. Historically the highest snowfall with these amplifying progressive boundary waves is near the NW edge of the snowfall *usually somewhere near the -8 850 isotherm) with another max closer to the R/S thermal boundary. A lot of the time that NW max area ends up further NW than guidance suggested heading in...but if you end up NW of that band it can drop of real quick to almost nothing. Being on the NW side is playing with fire in these but sometimes you get the jack that way also.

It's REALLY close with a setup around the 25th-26th but ends up splitting the energy between two closely spaced waves and both just barely miss south...but if it were to have consolidated better (not had that frontrunner) it would have been a hit. Besides the difference between a hit and a close miss at that range is noise. The potential is there in that window. I think that period is our best chance. Before that it's probably the deep south's once a decade shot at something.

It comes out about an hour after the operational.

That isn't bad for the Euro... it's typically the dryest model in these type situations. It's gradually beefing up QPF, I'm fine with where we are, as long as your expectations are realistic and you're not thinking you're getting some 8-12" snow lol. That's possible but by far not the most likely outcome here...but I think 3-6" is very doable for your area.

It looks better than the last run from what I've seen

At a glance looks very similar to 6z WRT placement of all the features and banding but a little wetter in the main band just NW of 95

In a meeting, cant do analysis but this is the money panel just came out

Guidance has now fully embraced another flux of -NAO and a period with a decaying west based NAO block around day 6-10. This probably opens the door to a bigger storm in that window (and we've now seen a few random solutions like that), although I don't think it necessarily increases our chances of snow in general.

I think the reason is because when I was looking at the differences last night, even between the most amplified and least (RGEM to NAM) there wasn't all that much difference in terms of major synoptic features...The SW and vort was a little more amplified on the RGEM and the boundary was a little further NW...and that made the difference between some 6-12" snowstorm up into central PA or some weak POS nothing wave sliding southeast of us. Guidance will struggle more when were talking about discreet features making such a significant difference. These progressive boundary waves are harder to nail down for guidance in general, but this one seems particularly delicate.

Regarding the UKMET...in it's defense for years the maps I saw posted here with UKMET snowfall output were counting any kind of frozen precip as snow...which often gave the false impression it was showing more snow or further south when other guidance was north. That is not the models fault...that is a bad map and user error. I do not think that is true of the current Pivotal Kuchera maps being shared...they look to have fixed that issue.

I am right on the 6" line but it has 12" like 30 miles NW of me...and you want to be on the NW side of the heavy snow in these type setups NOT the SE edge so no. Plus...if I can have my choice I want the whole area to get a hit...it's a little less fun when I am getting snow up here and the rest of the forum is rain because I know everyone else in here is miserable and I'm not going to come in here and be all "look at me I got a ton of snow" when everyone else is sad they had a snowstorm slip away. Give me the GFS win for all please. The UKMET over the years is an example of how h5 verification does not always correlate to being a good model for the specifics of a snowstorm. The details that lead to the exact amount of snow in your specific yard rely on things that might not be perfectly correlated to the model that is closest at getting 500mb heights correct on a hemispheric scale. That said...it doesn't jump around any worse than the GFS for example...it just hasn't in my experience over the years...been that much better at predicting snowstorms for our area despite its higher verification scores.

FYI, once we are inside 72 hours there is really no need to wait for the GGEM, the RGEM is just a higher resolution version of the GGEM. It's not like the NAM and GFS where they can be crazy different. The GGEM and RGEM are never that different just the RGEM will show more details...and frankly if they were different you're supposed to use the RGEM once inside range...so once close enough the GGEM is irrelevant.

We are seeing convergence on the final solution probably. The most extreme solution rarely wins 100% but my gut was the final solution would be closer to the more amplified solutions than the less and that is bearing out. I am still more worried about over amplified than under with this but things are converging towards a solution that would be pretty good for places from 95 NW, but I would still feel a lot more comfortable being NW of the fall line with this one.

I will admit it should help the eagles. But we dog walked this rams team in the middle of their “run”. When playing team that’s clearly a level below I don’t like anything that adds variance to the equation.

I got the important spot right

I fixed it

It's significantly SE with the thermal boundary compared to the RGEM at the same time. My guess is it ends up in between the GFS/Euro type track and the RGEM/GGEM solution. Judging by where the thermals are at 66 hours my guess is right along 95 ends up the boundary between rain/snow mix and little accumulations and the heavy snow area.

At least it know where the death band is supposed to be. Seems like it amped up a little but still on the lower end of guidance and had those annoying dead zones between bands.

18Z gefs MEAN 50% 3" PROB

I recorded 102" in 2010 and I was living in town that year. Crazy...I remember the snow up above windows in town after the second Feb blizzard.

All good points...and I don't think it trends so far that we end up totally skunked...I doubt this ends up some Pittsburg to Binghamton jack or something... but right now 95 is pretty much the bullseye, and if I had to bet which way it ends up missing if it does...its NW not SE. But its just a guess based on what happens "more often". Nothing is universal and this could even shift southeast and it wouldnt shock me, if the PV trends further south in future runs.

Ya'll should know by now its a good thing if I am "worried". That means we have a chance at a significant snow. I don't worry when there is no chance. I don't worry if our max potential is some 2-3" event. I wasn't worried about last weekend because who cares if a 1-2" snow fails. And I don't worry if I don't expect it to snow...if I know its likely going to fail I move on. I worry when we have a real chance at a significant snow...because if it fails that hurts more. My worrying is a sign we have a chance at a good snowstorm.

LOL ok maybe "worry" wasn't the best choice of words... I will be totally fine and move on with my life regardless of what happens Sunday...well at least wrt snowfall, if the Eagles lose I'm gonna be a pretty miserable mess for a couple days at least. But what I meant was... I want to jack, don't we all? and if I am ranking what is the most likely reason I don't....between the likely options...a weak POS wave, a wave that slides SE of me, or a more amplified wave that shifts the heaviest snow to my NW...that last one is the most likely IMO. This is not just based on models right now...yea right now it seems I am in a really good spot. But I am including my experiences...these types of progressive waves with absolutely no blocking over the top have nothing to stop a north trend. When they don't trend north its often some NS wave over the top, but I don't see that right now. There have been quite a few examples over the last 10 years where at 72 hours the jack zone was south of me, then come gametime I ended up with like 2-3" and the 6" plus totals were to my NW in central PA. It happened once just last winter in February! It happened in February and April 2018, it happened with a wave in Feb 2017! It happened with a wave in early Feb 2014, although I think my area held on to like 6" but the 10" totals ended up north when 72 hours out it looked like a VA jack! Point is, history suggests there is plenty of time for this to end up NW of me even though right now it looks like the consensus is south of me for the heaviest snow. And yes this is first world problems and unlikely to get any sympathy from anyone in here because I would still likely do better than the rest of this forum, many of those examples I gave I still managed to get like 2-3" but the really heavy snow ended up north of me...but of course that meant most in here got all rain lol. So no I don't expect any tears and I wont be that upset or throw a fit if it happens...but of course I want to get 6" of snow...and yes I think someone will with this...but my guess right now honestly if you forced me to say where the 6" snowfall area is...is it will be up in PA somewhere.

Yea but that sounding only is valid if the GFS is correct about the track. If the wave trends more amplified and NW it will shift the thermals with it.