psuhoffman

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

We need to start the thread soon enough for us to be able to close it to bring the storm back if necessary

I'm busy extrapolating the NAM

You forgot to mention the 3rd hit out at day 13-15 lol

It's not missing us NW or SE, it has the max stripe right across our area...its just super light and unimpressed. There are a lot of members that have nothing really at all. So the question is why? Lets keep in mind they are based off the op euro which is generally the least impressed with the wave lately for some reason also...which I am a bit more worried about, but I think the lower resolution of the EPS members probably just makes it likely they struggle with something as discreet as this. This is not really the type of thing they are designed for. The bigger question is why is the euro suddenly so unimpressed with the threat. But the euro is not perfect either, and this is the type of little event where a difference in .15 qpf and a tiny bit of dynamics to get that little "death band" along the thermal boundary is the difference between a 1-2" nothing burger and a 3-6" nice surprise. Any model, even the euro, can miss this type of thing. Or the euro is correct and the UK/GGEM are overdoing the SW. I don't know but if I had to lean one way or the other I think the euro is a bit under done.

@WEATHER53 and btw I did escalate it once it started down that path, I admit and take responsibility for that. I won't do it again.

Take this FWIW but its a pretty discreet piece of energy and perhaps the kind of thing the ensembles would struggle to pick up on. At least historically this is true but I am not as familiar with the new higher resolution EPS system since the upgrade. Haven't had a ton of test cases like this yet.

This is acceptable! To borrow from Ji

I don't care what everyone else says about you behind your back, I think you're ok

Mitch is gonna come along any second and tell us that 12z it lost the storm lol

To put this in perspective, I remember one of the events in early Feb 2014 I was up in Pine Gove PA that year...but still participating in this forum, and at about 72 hours out you were all rooting for a north trend on a wave that was supposed to be suppressed south of you...and it ended up giving me 8" of snow up in central PA and was mostly rain for DC.

I bet back in 2014 and 2015 the spread would have been even worse...so bad actually that we had no clue there was even this kind of potential at these ranges... none of our snow those years was really clear on guidance past about 72 hours. These types of patterns are not good for long lead tracking. The issue I think now is the guidance is better so we actually do have some idea what the period will look like and the threats...so now its frustrating that these waves move around every run and model to model...because we want some clarity. 10 years ago we would have no idea at all what was coming and what the specific threats were so we didn't get bothered by the crazy swings at 100+ hours.

At least you're not 13 anymore JK

I agree this is more productive discourse. Just so you know, honestly, I was just trying to make a light hearted joke yesterday and you went off. I realize we have had tense exchanges in the past so I will admit that I probably should not have tried to joke around, but it was not meant to start a nuclear exchange. Honest!

It's fine there for now... as I've said above, the most likely outcome at this range is still a miss south...but not by so much that we are out of the game. This has more chance to trend north than the waves did with that block in the way.

@WEATHER53 You use the guidance correctly all the time. You make posts where you see what the guidance shows and you say "this is not common, with the high there it will be colder" or "that SLP track would actually produce this". That is the right way to use the guidance...not to just take what it says and issue a forecast...but to adjust the guidance based on experience and probabilities and in a way to "predict how the guidance is wrong" and adjust for it. And at long leads like for next weeks storm...the operational runs are not to be taken with much weight...its about taking the full run of guidance including ensembles and get an idea of what the most likely outcome is based on the consensus of all that guidance adjusted with your experience from historical examples. Your critique of how the guidance is used seems geared towards how the weenies online use it, but who cares what randos do for fun. That isn't how profesionals do it. I ignore the noise from facebook and twitter weenies and hype merchants.

They are tools. And yes they are models showing possible outcomes, or permutations. Since we are not able to predict with 100% accuracy and each of the models we have is flawed in some way, every one will show a slightly different outcome as you increase the time range of the prediction. And that outcome will change every 6 hours as we get new information. It's up to us to make this useful. I find them useful. IF we didn't have the model guidance we would have no idea there was the risk of a major winter event over the southeast next week! Whether it comes further up the coast is less known, but we can say right now its not the most likely outcome but its possible. That's better than nothing which is what we would know without the guidance.