psuhoffman

I am an ass! But... they have forums to go into that are discussing this storm the way they want... you know because you are in them having that discussion. One is below. Going into another forum and telling THEM how THEY should be talking about stuff is...well, I'm not gonna take that ish seriously sorry.

Explain it in a paragraph please

Did you say something?

Maybe, but I tend to think its also what I said in my previous post...the GFS was right for the wrong reasons. Which happens sometimes. But its more likely its bias was simply playing into the what the eventual sampling errors were going to cause. It got lucky in other words. Things have changed...there was a clear trend over the last 24 hours that flattened the flow ahead of the TPV in the midwest and also a trend towards a more positively tilted trough. However, if you go back 3 days to when all guidance, even the GFS, showed what it did...under that paradigm I think the GFS was just wrong and doing its "I have trouble with complex setups" thing. Had THAT paradigm that existed even on the GFS been correct I think a more amplified storm was the correct solution. The problem was that paradigm was wrong...the flow was going to be a lot more progressive and less amplified. But the GFS in its bias was incorrectly projecting what turned out to be the correct solution for a different reason. Thats why it was starting to move in the wrong direction then had to reverse course suddenly!

We didn't start to get big model runs for Dec 2009 until inside 100 hours out. If we are going to treat 100 hour rug pulls like we used to treat the 24 hour ones...well that just shows us how far we've come. We didnt' even take 100 hours seriously back then! But a lot of our snowstorms didn't show up until around 100 hours recently. I know 2018, my last big snowstorm here, didn't look like much until inside 72 hours.

Dilly Dilly

It wasn't a lecture to you, it was just how I do business

It kinda makes sense though... @WEATHER53 this also pertains to the discussion about models we were having yesterday. There are multiple things that can cause a model error. One of the main ones is obviously a deficiency in the "math" of the model. We don't have the ability to model the atmosphere 100% accurately. But the other is sampling error. We also don't have the ability to sample every square inch of the world at every level 100%. So the models are forced to guess and estimate what is going on and initialize the atmosphere globally as best they can. And a very small error in that initialization due to a lack of sampling can lead to exponential errors when you get out to 100, 200, forget about it at 300 hours. So...in this case...what if the error here wasn't in the euro's math, it was sampling. What if the sampling that we had at 140 hours out really did create an initialization (in error) that had it been correct, had the atmosphere really actually been that way, the most likely outcome was a big snowstorm here! The math wasnt making a mistake, the mistake was the atmosphere never actually looked that way. Something important to that storm was in a data sparce area and the models did their best to guess what was going on and it wasn't totally right. A piece of energy was either more or less amplified. So...under this premise...from 150 to 100 hours the GFS wasn't "getting it right". We know from verification scores it really is the worse model of the major globals. What was happening is it was right for the wrong reasons. It was messing up the math in the same direction that the sampling error was occurring. Then there was a very brief moment in time for one run where the GFS started to "get it" under the old paradigm where the sampling error was creating the false impression a storm should be coming. But by the next run that sampling error was discovered, the new data showed a storm was less likely as we realized something was not the way we thought, and so then ALL guidance started to move in that direction. This is just an educated guess...but I think its very plausible and I've seen this kind of thing happen like this before. Others with more knowledge of the inner workings of these things could chime in, I love these kinds of thought puzzles.

I made a deal with the devil, sorry we’re not getting snow for 20 years. But it was worth it. Eagles won the Super Bowl!!! Yeah!!!!

Im holding out some hope until tonight still, but what shook me last night was the flow ahead of the TPV got significantly more suppressive. That wasn’t an issue. My optimism was driven by the fact the models had the low so far southeast because of a weird and honestly destructive instead of constructive relationship between the upper low and the SS wave. Bob made a good point that it was “dead” energy wise and acting like a kicker instead of a pinwheel in the flow to pull the storm up. But I felt that was a mistake. But now we have compounding issues! Now the confluence is a problem also!

No when things are bad I’m not a blow smoke up your ass rainbows and sunshine kinda person. When my team loses in the playoffs I don’t say “there’s always next year”. “Ya and the odds of us winning are no better, actually they’re worse we could suffer injuries and not even make the playoffs”. And I’m not that way with snow. You have no idea when the next opportunity with this good a setup comes along. We don’t know yet if the PDO is actually flipping. We might not get another shot like this for 5 years. Next year we could get another 2020 Or 2023 type winter! DCA only beats climo 1-2 times a decade. What if this was that good winter and we just got unlucky and missed our chance and now we have 6 more awful dreg years to suffer through before we get another! Im not who you come to for comfort if you need to see the bright side. Im a dose of reality good or bad. When it’s bad I dive into that lake of misery and swim in it. I cleanse myself in the fire through pain and suffering. And I come out the other side hardened and ready to go to battle again and take on whatever shit tomorrow has to throw at me.

Eagles won the Super Bowl

Funny I just looked and he didn’t reply to that thread lol.

Plot turn: as these things happen at or below our latitude less and less frequently it makes missing each opportunity even more catastrophic

Well now that’s starting to make more sense. I did find NC snowstorms they were decent analogs. Not VA or Delmarva ones.

I’m unleashing my @Ji Imma gonna need everyone to start posting as if the worst possible thing they can imagine is going to happen to them if we don’t get at least 6”, and by we I mean WE including myself and Mitchnick. I need every model run to be analyzed as if youur life depends on a warning criteria snow for the parts of this forum in a historic snow hole! I’m not in the mood for “good for Hampton roads let’s be happy for them”. Screw them they live somewhere that averages 5” if they cared about snow they wouldn’t live there.

I’ve made like 50 posts answering that over the last 24 hours.

What are we all having for our last meal tomorrow night?

I don’t know. Not going to pretend I understand what the error there (either before or now) is caused by. But as it continues to trend this way it’s making my arguments less relevant. They were based on an H5 look from 24 hours ago that’s becoming significantly different if that lobe doesn’t fully detach and close off its own circulation in time. Then its a suppressive instead of an amplifying force.

I thought the goal here was to get a NW trend not hold onto the already too far SE global solutsions lol

If this does get squashed...one of the biggest issues I see compared to 36 hours ago is that the TPV lobe in the upper midwest is not breaking away as clean or quickly. That is flattening the flow ahead of it and not allowing it to act as the pinwheel in the flow that we need, as a normal cut off ULL would do.

There are a lot of factors being tossed around about whats wrong...the biggest thing I see compared to 36 hours ago, is the TPV love is not separating as cleanly from the main TPV northeast of us as quickly or cleanly and its keeping heights down in front of it. Its flattening the flow instead of allowing that TPV lobe to act as a true pinwheel in the flow.

yea its early but changes are no bueno, we would need the H5 to amplify a bit more maybe to offset later

Or.... it could trend into an insignificant wave with no 8" plus snow anywhere...that also fits the analogs some where the TPV there squashed everything. But this in between stuff, I can't find any examples.

I didn't see a lot of KU examples with this H5 progression...what seemed more common was messy multiple wave or disjointed storms like you just described. The quote of mine above was in a back and forth with @Ji and not to be taken literally lol. But I was and am arguing for the possibility this should be further north. March 2017 was somewhat similar to this in terms of the H5 track but would have been way more amplified for the reasons you stated. But what I didn't find were any examples of a h5 setup like this with a closed ULL back over the upper midwest tracking through PA that resulted in a big snowstorm 8"+ for Richmond or the Delmarva like guidance has been showing. I couldn't find a single example. I found a lot of messier storms further north and a few examples of a NC snowstorm from a SS wave that had no interaction with the NS but in those cases it ended up SOUTH of where guidance is now...I saw nothing that looked like this. But I guess there can always be a first. But I do feel like if this remains as amplified as it is now, it makes more sense for the wave in the TN valley to be more amplified and the gulf wave less given the upper levels. This would translate to a further north but not as amplified system into the mid atlantic IMO. The other option would be for this to keep trending south and match the analogs I found with a true southeast snowstorm under a displaced TPV sitting over the upper midwest. Feb 1980 fits that but it was mostly NC up to VA beach with not a lot of snow north of there.