weatherwiz

Agreed there...I mean for those who forecast and for that area it's a different ballgame but we're not seeing 60-70 mph gusts inland or region wide unless we get a helluva line of convection to plow through which I don't see happening

Certainly have to watch the Cape and Islands for some big wind gusts Sunday night into early Monday morning. GFS has a pretty hefty llvl jet at 925. Get sfc temps around 60 or just a tick over and there could be some 65-70 mph gust potential there.

ehhh I think that is overdone. The cold air looks to lag big time at the sfc and it's dry out aloft rather rapidly.

sure it's not paint?

a few flakes falling here

Yeah there is definitely sneaky potential for snow showers scattered about these next few days. So for anyone looking for flakes (whether it's first flakes or just to get in the mood) these next few days offers some opportunities.

It amazes me how some still don't understand these type of setups. We all know it's extremely difficult for these events to verify on the wind side. There is a clear cut differentiator in these type of events performing: 1) You need convection and strong convection so you need at least some degree of llvl instability 2) Steep lapse rates - This is probably by far the biggest discriminator in these events producing on the wind side. There is always an inversion in these setups - always. Even the weakest of inversions will limit winds from mixing to the sfc. Towards the coast wind potential is usually higher but I don't see big wind potential on a widespread level with this. Even with a forced low topped squall line...I don't think the instability will be there to aid in momentum transport.

yeah definitely wouldn't be surprised if a few CT towns had some flakes tomorrow.

NAM has some snow showers for at least western sections Thursday...though greater potential may be more NY and NE PA.

18z HRRR continues to look decent tomorrow out east for a very narrow area. A decent amount of 3km CAPE too. Could really rip locally somewhere.

Getting close to the time of day where Anthony drops in to tell us the EPS looks good

well for those who hate the early sunsets were a few days away from the earliest sunset of the year. Starting next week we make all so ever slow improvements for later sunsets. Bad news for those who hate the late sunrise...still another 6 weeks until the sun starts rising earlier.

I like where the ridge axis is located there.

root for GFS

the euro is quite strong with the low too...it's just slower than the GFS. Euro has 982mb 6z Mon

The differences between the Euro and GFS in terms of timing for Sunday's system are quite crazy.

Probably see a marginal risk for damaging wind gusts out in NY/PA for Sunday. Not a whole heck of a lot of instability but there should be a pretty solid looking forced line that develops right along the front.

I would take that...especially if we can pump the higher heights a bit farther west into Greenland

Verbatim, there would probably be a low topped line of convection with that front this upcoming weekend ahead of the cold front. There would likely be a pretty stout inversion though which would keep alot of the wind ay bay. Any wind would be very localized and within stronger pockets of convection. Sunday could be pretty gusty with steep llvl lapse rates and CAA.

Modeling is certainly much better than it used to be...I don't think there can be any argument about that. However, IMO I think the rate of improvement has definitely slowed some over the past 5-10 years. That s just my opinion though and I have nothing to really back that up. I'm sure all these model scores and graphs will say otherwise. As we all know, modeling and the atmosphere is extremely complex. For models to do what they do is beyond impressive. Ultimately, though I don't think models can be technically "wrong". The solution of a model is based on how the model is evolving the atmosphere and all the pieces. Now the model can be wrong in how everything evolves but that doesn't mean the output is wrong. In terms of forecasting, I think it really comes down to experience, knowledge of fundamental forecasting, and at least a basic understanding of atmospheric physics. Forecasting is just more than looking at models and interpreting the output. It always makes me cringe when people will say "models will change" or "nobody knows what models will do". Those who have a superior understanding of the physics can probably gather better insight into which model may perform better or why one model is struggling versus another. Expectations and society also play a big factor. Now, everyone wants pinpoint and detailed forecasts for a specific location 3-4-5+ days out. That is not realistic in many situations. Social media has led to irresponsibility sharing information and products (i.e. snow maps) and expectations and reality become distorted. You're totally right, there is no easy answer but it is a combination of so many different factors, but it is indeed an interesting discussion.

That's what also pisses me off about this AI voodoo crap. It's all really just crap. If a model at D5 is showing a solution and then wavers back-and-forth up until the day of the event and ended up being what the model showed at D5....IT IS STILL crap because how the hell are you supposed to know at D5 that solution would be correct? It wasn't correct because it kept going back and forth like a tennis ball across the court.

It's almost even pointless to look at models beyond 5 days I mean the last 2-3...maybe 3-4 winters modeling has been awful. I don't care what some graph of Z-scores at H5 show. The model-to-model consistency has been trash, the model run-to-model run has been trash, and confidence even inside 24 hours on many storms has been brutal at times. Even the ENS haven't been particularly reliable. We've had some instances where ENS probs of 6''+ were greater than 50% which turned into crap.

Some just set themselves up for failure with how they're evaluating and interpreting long-range guidance. An OP solution showing a 982mb passing over the benchmark does not mean there is a credible storm threat. A 384 hour snowfall map showing 30-40'' of snow does not mean there are credible storm threats. All anyone should be looking at in the long-range is how the pattern is evolving. Some see the GFS show a blizzard at D12 and it's "let the tracking begin".

I'm hoping to spend more time digging into the MJO. I'm pretty happy with the progression I've made this past year with digging into seasonal forecasting but one area I haven't had the opportunity to dig into yet is the MJO. I was starting to question myself a few weeks ago (and then got COVID so last week was a drag just to work) about how I thought tropical forcing west of the dateline was good for us (that's what my composites seemed to elicit) but if this is where MJO phases are warmer for us then something must be off with what I was doing.

Nope and that's what I'm hold out hope on. Ultimately, I don't think we really need the MJO to get into more favorable phases. I would probably rather the MJO just kind of peter out all together and become a weak signal. But seeing how right now much is relied on tropical forcing...it's really anyone's guess on how everything progresses during the second half of the month. Models still struggle mightily with MJO waves/tropical forcing. If we can get these changes to start showing face on short-term guidance (inside 72 hours) we may have something.