OSUmetstud

Could be. Its always tricky. But a deep area of modest lift at different temperatures is more indicative of smaller agreggates than large dendrites. You end up with a dry but dense snow.

Just looking at soundings and different ratio methods id think somewhere in the neighborhood of 12:1. My general go to is cobb 11. These iowa state bufkit derived plots are nice...especially when youre only on a phone and cant use bufkit.

Nam is decent overall.

I wouldnt call it that since there isnt mid level closure. The trough is open from 700 and upward across the whole ne. Redevelopment comes via confluence. The 500 vort itself doesnt go south of Long Island.

Yeah storm-specific verification would be great, but tough to do obviously. I dont have access to the 06z ecwmf since jb doesnt have it on wxbell but i did notice the 00z was faster and the northern stream kicker dropped in just a touch slower...resulting in a slight improvement. Also the biggest difference between the 00/06z gfs fv3 and the 00z ecmwf appears to be the amount of confluence over the ne. 500 heights are 15 to 20 m lower on the ecmwf, forcing the farther south track and earlier redevelopment.

Ty, Its a slight improvement over the current gfs but it still lags the ecmwf and ukmet significantly in verification score. Its also significantly cold biased through much of the lower trop. Its not operational yet so they can still make tweaks (once the govt reopens, of course).

Nam is way more amplified but it super suppressed on 18z and 12z.

Yea. Its why you often see a bump nw in modeling the last 72 hours or so before a storm. Models cant properly resolve the increasing heights downstream of convection.

I think the quicker trend is important to make this bigger for ny. 18z ecmwf was quicker and better...same with the 18z gfs and fv3 gfs. The 18z ggem appears to be slightly faster than the 12z. I think the forum wants to see that trend continue. Even if the "B team" is 30 percent correct...that will help a great deal. Also, very anomalous pwats ahead of the system could cause some undermodeled convection pumping latent heat release into the downsteam ridge.

Im not going to die on a hill about this but 99.99 percent of the data in the models is not from balloons. So there's no reliability issues between 12z and 18z. In fact, model verification scores would tell you that an 18z 78 hr prog should have less error than the 12z 84 hr prog from 6 hours earlier. Occasionally you will see an abrupt change at 12z or 00z because a ballon happened to catch a poorly sampled shortwave out of the arctic. The cold temps and paralax error in the arctic make mid level shortwaves difficult to "see" via remote sensing from goes satellite.

Will in sne said it was slightly more amplified and faster.

That was the subtropical pac jet. Different thing.

Right. I think the eps/ecmwf solution is more reasonable since the screaming polar jet from the pv doesnt generally promote phasing.

Right me too.

Ecmwf has more separation from the northern and southern stream at 72...the gfs has a more intense and negatively tilted southern stream shortwave. The ecmwf doesnt partially phase with the northern steam like the gfs does through 96.

Hmm yeah it does seem to be more wholly different. Gfs is faster.

It doesnt know how to cad properly

My friend at ec told me its experimental so dont give it too much of a hard time lol.

Eh most of buffalo's synoptic snowstorms have some sort of coastal redevelopment. Its unusual not to.

There is a real trend to not allow any phase with the chunk of the pv over the ov...which makes this basically a southern stream system running into an east-west oriented pv "wall"...so naturally there is a trend towards coastal redevelopment. It probably decreases the chance of anyhing particularly historic for western and central ny...but still a very good snowstorm is likely i think.

Drunk?

Nah. Meltdowns are more fun.

I mean get excited. Its been a tough winter thus far and this looks like a really nice storm for the area...but id sell widepread 3ft kuchera amounts.

Thats probably a decent first guess. Id beware of some of the obsene qpf being thrown out in the models. In the end, its still not a closed off system in the mid levels. Risk of less than ideal snow growth with warmer than you might expect 600 to 700mb layer where lift is located.

Nice. That sounding is why you wouldnt generally forecast anything over 15:1.