weatherwiz

Let's look at the wind potential from the following perspectives: We can "handle" wind events where we gust 40-50 mph. Will this result in some damage? Of course. Will this result in widespread damage? No. Will this result in power outages? Yes Will this result in widespread power outages? No Now, if we get gusts in the 50-70 mph range, well then the answers to all the above are yes. So, what's the likelihood of a 40-50 mph gust event vs a 50-70 mph gust event? Let's assess... What are some of the differentiators between each? Low level lapse rates: In our higher end wind events, there are typically steeper low-level lapse rates present. The steeper the low-level the lapse rate, the greater the depth and strength of mixing. This of course results in stronger momentum transport and tapping into stronger winds. In this event low-level lapse rates likely will be less tan 5.5 C/KM...if even that. This isn't going to get the job done. Convection: The best way to drawn down strong winds is via convection. Outside of the impressive forcing, the signals for convection are very weak. No sfc-based instability, virtually no elevated-instability (or certainly not enough to indicate convection) due to very poor mid-level lapse rates and saturated profile. Dry punch: In these setups, the strongest winds ALWAYS occur outside of the heavier rain. Heavy rain stabilizes the atmosphere and limits mixing. Rain itself does not result in momentum transfer unless there is convection involved. A dry punch (or whatever you want to call it) can help with steepening lapse rates and also enhance mixing. If you look at this setup, the strongest LLJ coincides with the heaviest rain. It will be very stable above the surface and that will make it very difficult to transport much of these winds. Sure even if we "only" tap into a little bit of it we would get crazy gusts but how can we do that in this case...convection. And there isn't much signals for convection.

Bufkit (yeah kinda far out) is not very impressed with mixing (BDL). Have to change the value to 20 to really mix down stronger winds. The inversion actually isn't terribly strong though but it certainly doesn't take much of an inversion to prevent deep mixing. I still say we see gusts 40-50 inland. Bigger issue is going to be flash flooding.

layer of the atmosphere where temperatures warm with height rather than cool with height.

It's why media sucks. The goal is to draw people in at any cost possible. Viewers = money and when it comes to social media platforms likes/follows just equals a big ego. There is obviously nothing wrong with sharing forecast models online, however, the way it's done is just totally irresponsible. The idea should be to use something to emphasize or illustrate what you're trying to forecast. What gets me is when people will post like a snow map that shows 20-30'' and then say "here is one model showing 20-30''. doesn't mean it will happen, and this is only one model"...WTF is the point of the post then? there is no point other than to get views/likes/clicks.

If there was convection involved I could see that potential but I really don't see much convection with this. I wonder what the algorithm is for that product. llvl lapse rates are also pretty junky...appears mostly around or below 5.5 C/KM. tough to really mix down winds when they're that garbage.

The big problem with getting maximum wind gust potential with this is the core of the LLJ coincides with the heavy rain. Remember the strongest winds never occur with the heaviest rain.

I don't get why people on social media always have to show a model prog which is the worst case scenario. Hey the GFS snow map shows 12-18'' but the NAM only shows 3-6''...let's share the GFS map b/c it shows the most snow and everyone gets aroused by hype so let's arouse them. euro showing max wind gusts of 75 mph...NAM only 55 mph...let's show the euro. NAM showing 5000 CAPE, GFS showing 2000...let's show NAM. Everything always has to be the most aggressive, most extreme output. IT's FOOKING RIDICULOUS. WTF IS THE POINT?? Oh here is a SHARPpy sounding that indicates PDS Tornado...I'm going to share that even though what's presented on the sounding is probably more indicative of straight-line winds with a bit of curvature but it's PDS tornado and I want to scare the crap out of people. OUTRAGEOUS.

The Euro max wind gusts maps may actually be even worse than model snow maps

That is beyond impressive...wow. I'm still conflicted on the overall wind potential. My thinking is still gusts in the 40-50 mph range but there will probably see some higher gusts in the typical favored locations...but is that going to be the coast or higher elevations? For a more significant wind threat, I think I'd like to see the sfc low probably another 75-100 miles farther northwest. As currently modeled, I think it may be difficult to full swing the sfc warm front through a large part of the region. I could see it getting hung up around the MA Pike or maybe even a bit farther south. When you also get these highly anomalous LLJ's this time of year, it also usually indicates potential for a much stronger inversion (WAA aloft > WAA at the sfc). I guess it also depends too on how deep the inversion is but as we've seen it doesn't take much of an inversion to prevent big winds from mixing down. I also don't see much in the way of convection to aid in any transport. It looks quite stable throughout the column outside of some subtle unstable layers. Forcing is certainly enough to support convection but don't seeing much instability aloft. Having a fully saturated column doesn't help either. I also don't like the super heavy rain which is coincident with the max LLJ. This will further destabilize the column and lapse rates are very poor so mixing is going to be weak. I see sustained winds being strong (20-30 mph) but it might be tough to full gusts much above 40-50 mph with exception of the usual spots.

The models seem awfully aggressive too with the sfc warm front. 1) Snow pack 2) The main sfc low track is a bit too close to the region 3) multiple waves may develop along the cold front I guess there are multiple layers to attack here...this is huge in assessing overall wind potential; 1) >60F well we would see quite a bit of wind damage/power outages 2) 55-60F probably a bit more than "scattered" 3) 50-55 more in the way of scattered 4) < 50 the steeple on Kevin's roof may get blown off but that's probably about it. Will we see the widespread 55-60+ temperatures the models have...idk. 50-55 ay be more like it but best best is south (obviously). Hand drawing the sfc warm front with this would be fun. Too bad I sucked a drawing.

That LLJ being forecast is one of the strongest I recall seeing; particularly on the GFS. However, I don't think that translates into a damaging wind event. We'll see strong winds for sure (from the pressure gradient alone) with winds sustained 15-25 mph and gusts 40-50 mph (usual suspects 60+) but a stronger LLJ = a stronger inversion...unless of course we are able to pop sfc temps into the 60's which I don't foresee happening. Anyways, the snow pack will certainly enhance any inversion. Convection could certainly aid in the transport of stronger winds to the sfc. In this event, forcing is significant enough to potentially yield some low-topped convection or convective elements, however, it just might be too stable, however, there might be a shallow unstable layer between H7-H6. Flooding alarms for sure though

Just speaking in general terms. But too many just solely rely and focus on ENSO for long-range and well...as years have gone on and strides continue to be made with research IMO ENSO is more a back seat kina state as opposed to the driver. I mean sure a super strong ENSO event will probably be a main driver but these weaker events...they aren't the driver or focus of the pattern/evolution as either they once seemed or once used to be. A big player in this is just oceanic heat content in general. For example, take a look at the 1981-2010 climo means compared to the previous base...some weak La Nina events then are literally like a "neutral now". I think there are a couple warm-neutral ENSO events that are now classified as weak NIno too

I know I've made some posts on this but it's becoming more evident that these 'ENSO analogs" we all used to live and die by have less merit and don't hold the weight they perhaps once did. There are numerous reasons for this I think and well...could actually be a fun idea for a thread some day.

depends on position of entry

ohhh...with that amplifying trough/ULL digging in?

hopefully it's poking into the right region

you mean Sunday night?

If moisture return was much stronger ahead of the trough across the Southeast and mid-Atlantic this would probably be a sizable severe weather event. Could certainly see some low topped convection up this way but I think in the end the dynamics will actually be too strong.

Is it too early to start the Christmas eve severe thread? James may get blown into Santa's sleigh

what's the link to this? I was hoping there would be an updated regional one like this on the right (it's a much more visually attractive map) but it is from 7 AM

I agree with your post and loved how you laid it out, however, the problem is most don't use them for the reasons you mentioned above. What they're doing (IMO) is just leading to lazy forecasts and hype (now of course not everyone does this)...especially the younger crowd. At school when there was a winter storm thereat, the first maps that would be pulled up were snow maps...it was just looking at the snow map output from each model and geeking out. But in reality, if the time is spent assessing all variables and data you're going to outperform those maps and be more accurate. It's just like any type of forecasting...anyone can easily just copy and rip and read MOS and probably be fairly accurate, but actually taking the time to assess everything, use knowledge of climo and historical info, you'll beat MOS just about every time.

how did they do in the 2017 (I think it was 2017) storm? It was the storm where Newtown got like 22'' and Danbury only got like 13''...I thought New Milford pulled off close to 20'' (not jackpot obviously) but I remember being pissed b/c Danbury ended up on the wrong side of the band and I thought the way it was structured it hit New Milford too.

Those things should just be burned from the damn models. They are fooking ridiculous and lead to 99.99999% of the hype with winter weather. When you get a setup in which the snow ratios are likely to only be something like 7:1 everyone goes bonkers with the 10:1 maps b/c they "show a crushing". Then in the scenarios where the ratios will be significantly higher, everyone goes nuts over Kuchera b/c well it adjusts for ratios (I think). Model snow maps are good for the following; 1) Can be useful to sniff out areas which could be impacted by subsidence 2) be a good indicator of what a "jackpot" total amount may be. This is similar to QPF maps during convection season. If there is a convective event and models (although with resolution becoming better this isn't that case as much anymore) are showing a widespread like 4''+ QPF...that doesn't necessarily mean there is going to be widespread inches, it just suggests that locally, someone could get 4'' of rain in a thunderstorm (at least that's how I interpret it) 3) can assist big time with gradients (especially the northern cutoff) 4) structure of totals But all of these too can be derived by assessing all the data, however, with a combination of laziness and I'm sure time, its just easier to just throw up a model snow map and be like "oh look I'm getting 20''.

never a good sign if forecasting or hoping for higher end snow totals.

That was a great call. All in all I think this storm was well forecast so many days out. This really lived up to it's potential...it was a sizable storm from northern New England down into parts of the mid-Atlantic. Sure there will surprises (always will be) but given the news attention this had been getting everything played out beautifully. Moving forward I want to incorporate more cross-sectional analysis like dendrite suggested. I just look at H7 (fronto, VV) and always use that to dictate banding and where it occurs but that's not always the best level (as we know from this event).