weatherwiz

I am thinking of arriving by 12:30 as well.

This is what is going to be the biggest PITA. Models struggle with this

agreed...I think if this event pans out it is going to favor CT into RI and portions of interior SE MA

One concern I have with that stout high is it's going to be supplying a quite a bit of dry air to the north. This could really be a no-win situation event for most. If the storm track is farther south (which obviously is good for colder air) the northern edge of the precip shield could get destroyed with dry air. If the storm track is farther north you get increased moisture, but now you're talking about profile concerns (especially towards the coast).

This thing would come with quite the baroclinic zone too. Would probably see a rather narrow corridor of some pretty intense lift. With that pretty good CAD signal we should lock-in a cold enough airmass too, but the coastal plain will be a concern.

Just really have to watch this feature here for confluence. One thing models did horribly last year (And year prior I believe) was the handling of confluence across southeast Canada

https://www.stratobserve.com/ This site is incredible. Only issue is I am not totally sure how to interpret or put to use the information

I wonder if it has to do with with overall structure of the PV (both TPV and SPV). The PV looks quite robust and is displaced towards the other side of the hemisphere. Seems like interactions with lobes of the PV and the block are resulting in some funky looks (This is more me thinking out loud and may be meteorologically incorrect). Just picked a random time stamp for image below

Mis-type on my part...I was typing the season but should have said 2006-2007

I remember that b/c it was HORRIFIC. It kinda of fizzled out by the time it got here, but we had a severe weather outbreak on December 1, 2006 and there was a moderate risk that just got into Connecticut. but I think that January (or even early February) saw 60's in parts of SNE and 70's into NYC. We finally got some snow later in February and I think March. We got royally screwed with the SWFE too on Valentine's Day (Please Tip we don't need to hear the love story again). It was like 14F and sleet in West Hartford with only a few inches of snow. NNE got destroyed.

Wasn't it in like 2006?

IMO, anytime you start seeing flip-flops or even pattern change "delays" on ensemble guidance looking medium-to-long term that screams pattern change, especially when some of the run-to-run changes are rather volatile. I guess this ties into the Pacific discussion, but lately we've seen a pattern across Asia and the western Pacific dominated by wave breaking...there are the signals that we could see the jet become a bit more zonal across Asia with jet extension across the northern Pacific...this is what will help better the PAC and increase potential for amplifying troughs across the East.

If there is anything to take away from the GFS (even the Euro) it's there are some pretty potent shortwaves that will be diving south within the Arctic jet. There is going to be potential for some pretty significant weather systems with the STJ (which is strong as well) hanging around to the south. Any interactions and there's going to be some significant weather systems.

That's the problem...there are so many freaking shortwaves good luck getting any type of run-to-run or model-to-model consistency until probably a few days out (if that). We saw that last winter too. This leads to [INSERT MODEL NAME] sucks posts when in reality it's way more complex then the models sucking.

January could really be fun. I am totally fine with a hostile PAC right now and hostile as in potential to change. Unlike some of the past winters where the PAC screwed us, there aren't many signals that the PAC pattern is going to remain stagnant. If it was a signal where the PAC will be in a somewhat steady state...well that would raise some concerns, but there is alot of hostility indicating we'll see changes within the PAC. This certainly doesn't guarantee we get nailed, but it's what you want to see.

Sometimes its hard to follow what's going on. It's December 6. We aren't even close to peak climo in terms of temperature or snowfall. The pattern looks to favor blocking potential for quite a while...there would have to be a substantial, massive disruption to erode this signal. It's also very unlikely the PAC remains this hostile. The PAC will relax...now does that mean once it relaxes it won't become hostile again, no.

I will be there

End of the week certainly is a bit intriguing (only b/c something is being shown) but there are a ton of features at play. First, any shortwave that emerges could easily get sheared out then you have also the HP sliding north of it and this feature in SE Canada which could be a pivotal piece

I am a big fan of the WSSI.

Why are people having meltdowns? I'm confused. Do people think a storm has to be on a model at D10 and then expect the storm to hold on each subsequent run? Most of out storms don't even really become evident on the SLP graphics until like 4-5 days out. I think some need to keep in mind that while everything looks great in terms of pattern evolution we're still dealing with a pretty fast flow aloft. Those fast flows are a mess for guidance, especially when there are so many moving pieces (shortwaves). We're not going to see a scenario where models have a cyclogenesis bomb moving up the coast at D10 and having that be a consistent run-to-run solution.

Digging out of 1888

Not sure why the hostility after 12z. I mean nothing really seems unchanged...but there certainly could be some airmass concerns as as been stated with the lack of cross-polar flow. As long as we don't have a crazy garbage preceding airmass we don't need a -20C 850mb airmass either.

I wonder if this is driven by the lack of data points within the Pacific (especially northern Pacific). We can upgrade models and resolutions and physics all we want but if you're still lacking the quality data to ingest it doesn't really matter. Now...not sure what you can really do given its a giant body of water but it sucks nonetheless.

Spread and run-to-run variations should be expected and will happen. Obviously for many reasons, but perhaps one driving factor in that is the spread within the PNA. That's a pretty sizable spread and (especially when considering structure) could have substantial impacts overall.

I guess one thing I would really like to see become better established on guidance is a better configuration of the height anomalies in the EPO/PNA region and have the ridge axis oriented more S-N into the Gulf of Alaska. You sort of have that look in the medium-range (on the 6z GEFS) but the stout SE ridge and the ridging from the PNA ridge gets pinched off within the West. But getting a configuration would help substantially with establishing a cross polar flow.