psuhoffman

I agree, brought up that as a possible analog a little while back. Of course results differ because luck has a lot to do with the details and all we care about is the snow that ends up in our yard.

Let's slow down... the planet is still warm right now on the whole...its just the coldest anomalies in the entire northern hemisphere are over the United States this winter so far. That has been true the last few years even...there were still some pockets of cold...just outnumbered by warm and nowhere near us due to the longwave pattern also being hostile to get whatever cold there is into our area.

The seasonal trend seems to have shown itself.

Normally I would agree, in a more stable pattern with a well defined threat. But all these waves are low probability until they get inside 100 hours...so everything in the range next week we've been looking at is jumping all over the place run to run. Absent blocking we are relying on lots of moving parts without any guardrails to keep then consistent run to run, for these types of waves to work out. Given that...I am simply happy to see runs that extend our window indefinitely into the future. I am not confident that any one specific threat ends up hitting...although the Sunday thing is starting to get "real". But I am confident that if we extend this pattern for a long period of time...and get multiple shots at these waves...we will eventually get a flush hit. What made 2015 and 2014 work out was partially just that those patterns set in for such a LONG time...giving us multiple chances. If we get enough chances one will work out. So I am ok simply with the fact guidance keeps pushing back the flip to a shut the blinds look...which I am skeptical ever happens...and extends our window of opportunity giving us more chances to get lucky. And I am not tossing either wave next week yet either...just saying I am happy we have even more chances after that also. It's a numbers game.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it's a sign we're having a pretty decent year when we call a run that gives our area 1-3" day 3 and 12-18" in the long range "ugly" lol

The EPS was slightly better than 6z and indicated perhaps the Op was underdone but its not even close to the GEFS level...that was an exaggeration unfortunately.

I'm just thinking of 2 anecdotal but similar situations in 2017 and 2018 where we were trying to win with a progressive boundary wave...but things were going sideways about 48 hours before the event (it was trending north which is still my bigger fear here) and the Euro came in with a less amplified solution against all other guidance and we hugged it and posted those stupid burger king memes and said "all hail the King" and of course it was wrong and it ended up mostly rain both times and the heavy snow ended up in PA. It's pertinent IMO because those were similar setups and the euro proved its not often right when its against all other guidance. And it tends to sometimes be under amped with these things

But the Euro while by far the best is not so much better that it often is right when its off on an island. When it is the outlier its usually wrong. Yea it's more troubling having the euro as the outlier over any other model which would be easier to "toss" it still rarely scores a coup when its all alone on an island, in this case the least amplified of all guidance. It does however, make the crazy over amplified and too far NW UKMET and GGEM runs less likely...it makes the final compromise calculation closer to a less amplified solution. I'm ok with what it just showed considering we have 2 major pieces of guidance that are more amplified than we want.

as long as the whole run ends up correct IDGAF

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