SnowGoose69

This is correct...the one thing the Euro/EPS has had correct for the last 2 days is the mass extending snow shield west of the low...there are tiny hints the last few Op runs of the GFS/CMC of that but especially so on some of their ensemble members that they are starting to pick that up...but if the low track is so far east it won't really matter to anyone

The Euro will probably incrementally continue to tick east barring the GFS/CMC ideas being wrong which I guess is possible

I pointed this out in the NYC forum a few days ago but the 500mb pattern over the US is so darn similar to February 24 1989...the storm evolution itself is not and is way more dynamic but the track may be pretty darn similar.

One thing of note is that more members of the GEPS/GEFS at least are picking up on the fact a huge ass area of snow will exist in long duration behind the low track....given what is going on at the mid/upper levels that has been one thing its evident the Euro/EPS has been correct on for 2 days

I think it'll be closer to 10:1 due to very strong winds...if you're further inland with more frictional impacts ratios would be higher.

18Z NavGEM is a narrow miss of a big hit...so we got that going for us which is nice

The GFS tends to be stubborn on these setups...it sometimes won't cave til the final 36 hours but if its a monster KU type event it may cave earlier

It varies from season to season. The last few months its been horrendous past 48-60 but it does go through stretches where it performs well beyond that range. It has alot to do with the nature of the pattern. It has been having issues with the progressive nature of the flow this winter

The Euro this winter since the upgrade it had late in the summer has not had that bias of overamping coastal storms in the 84-120 range anymore which it had from the 2016 upgrade anymore. It did indeed overamp the system last week in the SE but that was an atypical setup and not a coastal storm. I am less skeptical of this solution than I would have been any previous winter the last 4 years

11/11/87 BOS/DCA both saw 6 plus...my recollection though was the forecast here was not for much, maybe 2-3 and we got 1. The BOS forecast was good. DCA they had a chance of flurries and they got 12-20

February 89...Dec 89 was a Miller B...models always struggled with those pre middle to late 90s...Feb 89 was largely NCEP/WFOs heavily biting on the NGM which had been out just 2 years but was weighted heavily in forecasts despite the LFM and other guidance not really ever biting on big snows back into NYC/DC/PHL. The Dec 89 event basically every model from my memory was going with 4-8 inches on the 12Z cycle that AM

On the positive side, this storm also had a similar 500 pattern out west and that one worked out okay. The ridge was more amplified in this case, that was only one factor but it played a part in the end result difference. The ridge verbatim on the GFS is better than 89, the problems more originate with what is going on with the SRN stream http://www.meteo.psu.edu/fxg1/NARR/1989/us0224.php http://www.meteo.psu.edu/fxg1/NARR/2009/us0302.php

The 500 setup across the entire lower 48 resembles February 89 a ton lol...

I agree with what one of the Mets posted in the MA forum last night. This evolution is similar to 2/4/95 but as of now furthest east. The overall setup though most resembles that of any storm I can remember and there is some minor similarity to December 2010 but this is going to be a much faster mover than that

Inland is real unlikely but something running right up the coast like an 87 or January 2000 is and due to the relatively stale air mass it appears will be in place you can’t really afford that sort of track here. You’d flip over pretty fast at the coast if it did

Any time you have a well placed strong western/Rockies ridge you can get a major snow event with a +NAO. I think January 87 had a strongly positive NAO

The SPC HREF still shows mean of 2.2 or so near NYC to W LI. I think the changeover may be faster than the HRRR/NAM show, maybe as early as 10-1030z

If the 18Z NAM is right then even SE VA barely sees anything with this.. That would be quite a bust a 3-4 days

The UKMET definitely is a bit NW with precip in GA/NW SC than the other globals

Don't take it as gospel and this range but the 00Z HRRR coming in even more amped with this...this may be the biggest event of the next 5 days in the end

The Euro ticked north for Thursday...that event probably does have some impact on the ensuing system although with a billion moving parts its hard to say how.

Its definitely odd that with this event the GFS seems to have won because typically when you're talking about purely southern stream energy coming up out of the Gulf the GFS is going to be owned by the Euro 95 times out of 100, even the last 5 years when the Euro was not as pristine it usually won on those events

I don't remember who it was but a poster years ago on easternwx who has vanished since used to always point out when the weaker models agree strongly or are very close to the better models like Euro/GFS/CMC at a range of 72-120 it typically means the solution being spit out is going to drastically change. The theory is that those weaker models rarely will get an evolution right at that range so odds are the better models are wrong too. when you consider how close the ICON and NavGEM are to the Euro/GFS idea we can watch if his theory plays out.

The 18Z NAM idea is the one that has made the most sense to me from the beginning. In a scenario with a trof oriented the way it is across the W Gulf/Texas it does not make sense to me that the energy would bury and not eject out

Models basically have no idea which wave or piece of energy to key in on.