psuhoffman

I am frankly more worried about ending up SE of the snowfall max than NW up here even.

They factor in temps...and that's why most of the Kuchera maps are below 10-1 ratios along 95. Kuchera busted one time this season pretty bad because the lift and DGZ were out of alignment and the QPF ended up lower than projected...but the Kucera maps were spot on for the last snow event. 10-1 will be wrong in places that get higher and lower ratios also. There is no one snow map that will be perfect...we call them clown maps for a reason, but the Kuchera are no more flawed than any of the others IMO.

PDO and AO, we got a hostile cycle of both to coincide...not good. So far both have kinda flipped this year...if we go into a favorable cycle of both simultaneously.... yea baby

This started to escalate right on time as expected...just as it hit the 72 hour range... these things always tend to juice up some at the end... doesn't mean we are the beneficiaries but since the boundary has been near us all along I've had a pretty good feeling on this one.

I hope so, because without any blocking Id much rather be on the NW side of the qpf shield going into gametime than the SE. If all guidance actually looked like the RGEM I would be worried we end up a bit too warm even up here. My hope is that come Saturday the guidance looks like the last run of the euro did or something close to it. Maybe slightly more amplified would be nice.

The thing I like most out of the last cycle or two of runs is that across guidance there seems to be an expanding of the precipitation field. A larger "win" zone.

I wouldn't say the UKMET is always under amped...it can sometimes be really amplified...hence the "crazy uncle" nickname it had for a while. Still I think the final solution is likely somewhere in between the two extreme camps (GGEM/GFS)

It's last 2 runs were pretty identical, before that it was even more amplified and further NW, even had me getting mostly rain. It's trending slightly SE overall but its been and continues to be the most amplified and so the most NW of all guidance. It's likely overdone...the most extreme solution in either direction rarely "wins" 100%. It's almost always a compromise solution that wins...the questions is how much of a compromise...

It had a run that was about 3-6” along or near 95 yesterday too. I think that’s likely close to their max solution. If the wave ends up more amplified and the track shifts NW I think it has 8” potential for places further NW like MRG, HGR, MDT. Of course that’s dependent on them getting into the max band. I do think in general the further NW the snow ends up the more likely it is to be heavier.

I’m kinda tossing the GFS boundary location. Because all other guidance is all pretty close on that and the difference between the further NW Ggem and uk and southeast euro was simply the amplitude of the SW. if that’s true (and it might not be I’m wrong plenty) then we have a range of permutations that is between a 4-8” snow with a NW of 95 track to a 1-3” SE of 95 track. If I’m wrong about the location of the boundary then it opens the door to a bigger snow SE, but I tossed that solution because it’s only been on the gfs and that models been a mess lately. Across all other guidance we’ve had a more consistent range of outcomes.

@CAPE this is also another reason why I prefer waves to be south on guidance in a progressive boundary wave pattern. Because then you’re rooting for a more amplified stringer storm to shift it north! It’s not actually more likely (I’ve had plenty of examples of these shifting south into me also) but it’s more fun. The examples where it shifted south also tend to make it a less exciting storm. Take 2014, in March at 72 hours when a wave was supposed to hit PA it was supposed to be a 12-24” snow. It ended up a 4-8” snow in VA because the wave was weaker so it ended up south. Conversely the early Feb wave was shown as a 3-6” snow in VA at 72 hours and ended up a 6-12” snow up in PA. I’d rather be rooting for a stronger wave with higher snow but unless you change other variables that usually shifts a progressive boundary wave northwest. If you’re rooting for a south shift in general you have to root for a weaker storm.

Agree except I’d rather this not hit during the Eagles game. They’re the much better team. I don’t want anything that could cause a fluke or give a team we would normally dog walk a chance.

That had nothing to do with IMBY. Cape and I were having a scientific debate about this. Don’t be a jerk.

That’s not as heavy as the solutions that are NW (UKMET and GGEM). But the GFS thinks the boundary is about 100 miles southeast of where those models have it. It suddenly has a stronger more amplified wave but it located it differently. The euro had been shifting SE because for 3 straight runs it simply had a weaker less amplified wave. If you only change the amplitude of the wave it either increases snowfall and shifts it NW or decreases snow and shifts it southeast. But there are two variables. Actually more but two main ones. The amplitude is definitely linked to the location of the snow zone. A more amplified wave favors a further NW track. But if guidance is wrong about the location of the front and the front is further southeast that can offset. The gfs changed both variables simultaneously which resulted in a further SE but stronger snow solution. A stronger snowier solution definitely favors a NW track unless you also tweak a second variable and shift the boundary to compensate for a more amplified wave wanting to shift the thermal boundary NW

I think so long as the pac jet continues to undercut the wpo epo ridge we will be ok. That puts pressure on the pac ridge to be poleward and for the cold to press east and not dig into the southwest. this has been a seasonal constant and is related to the pdo flipping phases on us.

I’m not gonna extrapolate what it means but the NAM at the end has the SW responsible for the Sunday threat all the way back in TX/OK at the same time it’s in the TN valley on other guidance. lol

Can’t sleep damnit. Ggem is going to come SE from its ridiculous 12z inland runner idea but it’s still going to be more amplified and NW than other guidance based on rgem at 84h. Probably a hit for the NW parts of the forum.

I’m going to sleep, I want to see at least 200 new posts when I wake up.

It depends because there are 2 variables here. Where the thermal boundary ends up and the amplitude of the wave. They are not 100% linked but there is some causality between the two. A more amplified wave will cause the boundary to end up further northwest. A slightly more amplified wave would slow the progress of the boundary east. Enough amplification could even push it further nw which is what the ggem does and is why that’s an even bigger snow but NW of this whole forum. It is possible to get a bigger snow solution further southeast but to do that you need to both increase the amplitude of the wave but also adjust the thermal boundary even more southeast to compensate. So you would need two errors instead of just one. If you simply adjust the wave to be more amplified it will shift the snow northwest and increase the snowfall. If you want to increase the snowfall AND not shift it NW you need a stronger wave and to hope guidance is also wrong with the location of the boundary and it’s actually further east to start. I guess in my initial post I was only accounting for adjusting the amplitude of the wave when it is possible other variables could be adjusted also.

It’s unlikely the timing and amplitude if all the waves gets resolved at range. To noisy.

Depends what you think is significant. It wouldn’t take a lot to energize the boundary into a 3-5” snow event but that would also be further NW. There is a reason the runs with more snow target 95 NW and weaker runs target SE. A more amplified wave will stall the boundary as it presses for a time and so the snow ends up NW of the weaker wave solutions that do not slow the boundary. Since the snow will end up wherever the boundary is lol. So it seems the max potential of it ends up southeast of 95 is a 1-3” snow. If it ends up NW it would likely end up a bigger event. Not by a lot but slightly more.

Oh wait I just remembered I am immature… “Your mom was ok with it last night”.

If I was less mature

Let me illustrate below how much I care about the details of any GFS run

Not in this kind of pattern with this kind of storm. Every time this exact same thing gets said. And someone points it out. Then we do it again