Jump to content

psuhoffman

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    24,041

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by psuhoffman

  1. psuhoffman
    If we really are still fringed at 48 hours I feel good about our chances. I will worry if there is a shift south today leaving us needing a 100 mile adjustment again. We have seen numerous times how that ends. Congrats richmond EZF and Salisbury
  2. psuhoffman
    Not if you're in the northern 1/3 of our forum. Dropped my qpf about .25
  3. psuhoffman
    The ens still outperform the op until about 72 hours. Since the meat of the storm is outside that tonight they are still relevant. After that they can be a red flag that maybe the op was a bad run if they strongly disagree but for details the ops become preferable staring tomorrow imo.
  4. psuhoffman
    Ok...I said it wasn't likely but guidance is striping just south of us with .75 qpf and you adjust this look about 3-4 mb deeper and 50 miles NW and you have that analog snowfall map. You really think that kind of adjustment isn't possible at 102 hours???? Likely no...possible yes
  5. psuhoffman
    I don't trust the gem either but I've seen that look before. go through some of the moderate snows in the KU book that nearly missed being a big storm and you see jacked up stuff like that with a lead wave outrunning the washing out upper energy. March 99 had a storm that split like that. There were others. It might be and it likely hasn't nailed down the ccb location either.
  6. psuhoffman
    I was being serious. Not about up all night that's just a saying but about how this could fall apart if it did. I'm not predicting that but one thing I do every threat is determine what our most likely way to get screwed is so that I can see it right away if things start to unravel. Way too often I'm right about the "how it will fall apart" thing when I wish I was always wrong. Always bet against snow here and you will look smart most of the time!
  7. psuhoffman
    @Bob Chill It will nudge north the last 36 hours. Bob I know you have said the last 72 and for a long time that was the rule but I've noticed the last 3/4 years, since about 2015, it's been the last 36 and that nudge north is more like 39-60 miles not 50-100 anymore. But it's still real. If we are still sitting this close to that higher qpf stripe at 48 out I feel good. So far (other than some jv players) there hasn't been a south move to take us out of the game for that bump to place us into the max snowfall band.
  8. psuhoffman
    Lol and that's why I should keep my mouth shut until it plays out. At 84 it seemed destined to wash out then it reamped along the coast quickly and ended up a better run. Still a crap result for me but a good run for you!
  9. psuhoffman
    I would be totally satisfied with that.
  10. psuhoffman
    Ehh I'm meh...haven't looked at precip yet but to 84 it's a mess at h5. Stretched out. Energy all over. Nothing consolidated. Flat. Strung out crap garbage look imo.
  11. psuhoffman
    Not loving the h5. It's stretching out and leaving a lot of energy behind.
  12. psuhoffman
    problem is we are comparing this to 18z and that was an awful run. So slightly better isn't necessarily good enough.
  13. psuhoffman
    Yep. If the other guidance moves to that solution tonight we might be in trouble again. When it was diving that energy in behind in previous runs I was hopeful that given the typical trend towards a more amplified system in the end game we would be ok. But if that's coming down in front like last time then we have the same exact problem as December only with an even weaker system this time. That wouldn't work. That would leave us with only the weak NS wave that runs out ahead. Hopefully the jv models injected some bad mojo.
  14. psuhoffman
    Actually at 54 the trough is significantly more amplified in the plains. But again the real issue will be how badly it gets compressed as it approaches the east coast
  15. psuhoffman
    Yea but didn't the 18z run look like crap? The gefs was great but I thought the op was a bad run?
  16. psuhoffman
    Doesn't really matter. Early on everything looks good. The problems start around hour 60 as the flow starts to get compressed as the western trough presses east with the PAC jet crashing in bit the North Atlantic vortex has the flow blocked up so the trough starts to get squeezed and stretched out which causes it to de amplify. From then on it goes wrong (on the guidance that it shearing it apart). Yea north and amped is good early but might not matter if it goes the same way down the line.
  17. psuhoffman
    Hmm I might have to take back my "not as suppressive" comment. On the icon and nam another lobe of the 50/50 rotates down into New England exactly as the storm is reaching out longitude making it impossible for it to amplify and gain latitude. Same as December. Could be bad luck. Or maybe the 50/50s are prone to set up too far south this year. Hopefully it's wrong. If not hopefully it's just bad luck twice in a row.
  18. psuhoffman
    Icon is back to the idea of holding energy back and developing a second wave but no way in this flow that has a shot. We need one consolidated ejection of energy to overcome the flow. The NS isn't neatly as suppressive this time as December but in December the system came out really amplified and held together to the coast. It got forced due east but it was well organized. This time it's ejecting in pieces and is a weak strung out mess. (If the icon and nam are right) That won't cut it. Lets see what the big boys have to say before getting worried.
  19. psuhoffman
    Your not exaggerating. The difference for relatively short leads from 18z to 0z were alarming. Icon looks like hot steaming poo at h5 after a sweet 18z run.
  20. psuhoffman
    It's losing its upper level support as the flow gets compressed and starts to de amplify and its running into resistance at the surface from the apps and the high pressure and so it jumps to the next least hostile environment which is the barclinoc zone along the coast. The jump isn't the problem. Some of our big storms take that track. The problem is the storm is washing out and the lift mechanisms are dying. In simplistic terms the initial wave from the west is dying as it approached and the new low developing on the coast is too weak to do much for us until it's too late. If you want to keep yourself up all night out total fail scenario would be for the initial waa wave to either die or ride to our north with minimal impact and then the coastal to develop too late and we end up in a snow hole.
  21. psuhoffman
    @Bob Chill I do wonder if we can get this amplified enough in the TN Valley if it might not simply hold together well enough to jump to and reamplify on the coast. Guidance might be shredding it too quickly and undergoing the ridging in front as it gets going in the miss valley. I'm not saying a hecs solution but I could see one of those 6-10" ensemble ideas that way.
  22. psuhoffman
    I agree. And I think the pattern analogs are missing that fact. But I've told myself things like "they aren't seeing the high" or "there is a colder airmass this time" or "the flow isn't as progressive" when over the years guidance looked good but those analogs suggested a warmer or more out to sea outcome. And a few times the models caved to the analog guidance. But sometimes it didn't. I doubt this time goes that way but it's still worth throwing it out there.
  23. psuhoffman
    Cips analogs still think the pattern is more loaded than the ops and perhaps we are giving it credit for. Sometimes I like to look earlier in the progression to see what the setup lead too. Looking at the Mississippi valley cips thinks this should be an amped up system. Some of the analogs are 2-12-1983, 2-5-2010, pd2, 2-22-16, feb 87, and 1-7-96! Lol The most impressive look might be the southeast as the system approaches. The top analogs are 1. Feb 5 2010, 3. Feb 83, 4. Dec 2009 The flow does deamplify some by the time it's on the east coast but even then the top analogs include feb 83, 2-12-2006, pd 1979, psuhoffman 2011, pd2, and 1-25-2000 and the mean looks like ... now this guidance is not perfect. obviously all of the operationals are currently deamplifying the system much more than the analogs to the current pattern did. But there are members in the ensembles that suggest a bigger event isn't out of the question and the analog guidance says the pattern supports that idea so perhaps it's not out of the question. I would still favor a moderate event. I think cips is likely missing the weakness and the disorganization of the vorts in this setup now and maybe is underestimating the impact of the high but at times I've ignored these analogs when they were suggesting something I didn't like only to see the guidance flip towards what the analogs suggested so it's worth keeping the door open to a more amplified system.
  24. psuhoffman
    I thought we were punting January?
  25. psuhoffman
    Sorry...don't know what else to say. It's not worth it, definitely not for that moron.
×
×
  • Create New...