SnowGoose69

With a +PNA you won't see anything that warm, it'll just be alot of days averaging 5-7 above normal

QPF wise Euro looked like it was gonna go boom but then flat lined

I generally never used it this far out. I do know its very good on the mean inside 24 usually. I am still surprised to see a mean of 5 and max of 8-10 though

I feel as if more members don’t have it stalling today than yesterday, there’s a few more now blasting it through 7

The RAP/SREF are showing their usual NW bias at this range...its why I have said if you can pick a spot to be right now I'd go with a Long Branch-Cranbury-Marlboro-South Brunswick line....I think the IVT may set up somewhere between about EWR and TTN in the end based off just past tendency of where these go from 48-60 hours out

Often times in the -EPO pattern you default to the -AO/+NAO idea...we saw that in 93-94 and 13-14 or was it 14-15? I forget...but the EPO heights sometimes can hook NE if the EPO ridge is positioned more east of where the GEFS shows it so you end up with above normal heights over the pole and a -AO but the PV gets shunted into E Canada and extends over Greenland so you get a +NAO. The GEPS sort of shows this idea at 336 hours but its not really a true depiction of what we saw in those 2 winters for large stretches

Its 2 problems the last few years since its recent upgrade is a notable dry bias and also the Op is often over amped with E coast storms from 90-120...in this event since the dynamics are not especially strong its paltry QPF could be right but its sure doing what it so often does on QPF relative to other models

96-99 was insanely bad...that said, 96-97 was a great winter for areas say north of the PA/NY border, we simply got very unlucky with a few setups here, 97-98 98-99 were horrendous though...remember that the 5 boroughs had no Winter Storm Watch issued at all from late March 1996 til 12/28/00....the January 2000 event would have had one issued but due to the model issues the area went straight to a warning...to go that long where at 24-48 hours no storm was going to obviously produce 6 inches or more of snow or 0.25 inches of ice is an impressive run

Its sort of funny how it was most consistent model with this past event but its been in my mind the most inconsistent with this one by a wide margin. The NAM/Euro have been most consistent, albeit snowing different ideas but they've bounced around the least run to run

That has gotta be the worst +PNA/-EPO pattern I ever saw lol....I am not even sure if that technically qualifies as a +PNA but basically all the numerical GEFS have it as positive in that period. If you wanted to draw a map of how a +PNA/-EPO/neutral NAO/AO could screw you over, thats about as close as it gets.

Yeah, in this case though I fear it could shift back south slightly, not really much room for this whole thing to come much further north really. And if it somehow did if confluence over SE Canada weakened we'd probably get more WAA snows from the S/W anyway. If you want any snow now you ideally probably wanna be in roughly the NYC corridor down to CNJ. North or south of that things can probably go wrong more so

Sure enough today a few more GEFS members try blasting it past 6 through 7, the EPS effectively kills the wave in 6 which I said is fine too because then you probably just revert into a typical Nino February state

Usual rule with IVTs they go north late, not a surprise the last 24 hours we now see it focusing closer to NYC than down in the MA as it initially was

The RGEM looked way better aloft early but it did not translate through the whole run...it more or less was just a bit faster than 18Z but not a huge difference. The ICON was better but it waffles every run

Always overamped...I glanced and it 2-3 days back for today and it did have heaviest snows in like NE PA and Monticello sure enough and it was like 80 miles too far NW

Its got a flukey secondary surface reflection though in the IVT off NJ...18Z RGEM had that too and I think both runs overdid QPF as a result....it can happen though, its just hard to assume at 80 hours out it does but little surface lows forming within the IVT or along a boundary can tick the QPF up enough to matter

It was a Miller B digger that was supposed to re-develop and did not dig enough Models were notorious for blowing those into the middle or even later 90s. They either would over dig the shortwave or just over bomb the surface low too early when the trof reached the MA so we had a ton of overblown snow forecasts that never happened. This one was the latter more so, it did not dig enough and the low tracked overhead. 2/16/97 is the last instance I remember of models botching one, the ETA became a good fail safe at not screwing them up and the Euro began to get increasingly used more after March 93 by the US forecasters so those busts sort of fell off the radar after the early 90s mostly

Nah, that was 12/15 haha, so two screwings in 3 days but the first one we were expected to see nothing though

It was a DC/BWI/IAD/ILG snow event they had 3-7 inches and we saw nothing due to similar confluence issues in Canada. My memory is models showed nothing here but parts of SNJ and SE PA got nothing and were forecast to see several inches. Just 2 nights later we were supposed to see 4-8 and got 20 minutes snow, went to rain and it ended

12/13/89 is the closest match at 500...do NOT go look at what happened that day if you cannot remember

Honestly just dying in 6 and going dormant is fine...PNA looks positive and AO might head negative...you just don't want it to re-emerge again strongly in 3-4-5

There are many cases of SW-NE moving weak forcing events which overperformed in DCA/BWI and zonked out here...some have even done the reverse....1/19/02 is a good example of one that pulsed over DCA they had 5-10 inches and here we got the generally forecast 2-3...there are many others too but that one stands out for sure. 12/90 is one that did the opposite, it badly disappointed down there and pulsed up here and we saw 5-8.

Thats a tough one, we had a shot at 4-6 today, albiet small...we need some solid changes to get this one up there. I think 2-4 is a reasonable ceiling now.

HREF mean was fairly close in the end. We simply failed on the upside potential which I felt was good as models tend to underdo WAA snows in weak setups like this...that idea worked in PHL/BWI but not here

Hopefully they can Brind'Amour if they fail again in May this year, its getting old already and I get that he's loved by the fans and the team but sometimes you gotta move on if a guy cannot get you to where you've been good enough to be for 3-4 years