Ajb

Probably about 4” near DTSS. Still snowing steadily, but not quite as hard as between 10-11:30. 

12 hours ago, CAPE said:

Sounds like a reference to the electrical grid in the South central/ SE US.

https://www.serc1.org/about-serc

A bit odd to use that in the context of a weather outlook.

Weather plays a major role in electricity consumption, so maybe that was taken from a write-up aimed at the electricity industry. 

For people really interested in the science of that which shall not be named, I really encourage you to look at the IPCC working group 1 report.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

There's a ton of information there, with links to the original papers, and it should be able to answer all of your questions.

2 hours ago, CAPE said:

An extended solar minimum and a few major volcanic eruptions and we are good to go.

Don’t forget the sulfate aerosols. 

And all snow now near DTSS. 

Sleeting mixing in near DTSS. 

Without commenting on the video specifically, maybe some rando on YouTube isn't the best place to get your news and analysis?

Enormous flakes near DTSS. Grass is covered, elevated surfaces might be giving in. I'd like to request that this band not go anywhere for a while.

Heaviest snow of the day so far (not that heavy) near DTSS.

22 minutes ago, osfan24 said:

Can someone explain the point of the Euro Control if it shouldn't be used as guidance?

It’s one member of the ensemble. It has the same initial conditions as the op and can be used to diagnose the impacts of the differing resolution between the ensembles and the op. I don’t think there’s any reason to give it any more weight than any other member of the ensembles, but I’d be interested hearing otherwise. 

Looks to be about 6” near DTSS. 

1 hour ago, Weather Will said:

WB 0Z EURO control has no cold air in sight.  May have to start facing reality here…

For what possible reason is it worth looking at the ensemble control at 240+ hours?

Something pretty legit just went by us near DTSS. 

Lost rates for a while, but picking up again. Maybe .75 inches on the deck. 

Was in the heavy stuff for a while. Moderate snow now. 

Coming down rapidly near DTSS. Accumulating on the streets. 

Beautiful large flakes in the band over the northern beltway. 

Finally some moderate snow near DTSS. 

Woke up with the ground and streets covered near DTSS. Rates picking up now. 

Small flakes mixing in near DTSS. 

3 minutes ago, high risk said:

      probably sometime in March now.

Is it still the case that the ensembles will be based on the old physics?

33 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Honestly because it was commented on but I felt was misrepresented. Otherwise I wasn’t going to bring it up.  But the control is unperturbed and typically is very close to the operational at that range so absent an op run at 6z the control is the next best hint at what the euro thinks. More so then one of the perturbed members. That said it’s lower resolution so it won’t handle thermals as well...and the euro op was running slightly colder the last few runs so there is that.  I’m not trying to be a deb I was just correcting what that specific run showed.

Thanx for the response. Maybe this belongs somewhere else,  but I’m curious the extent to which the next op follows the control. I guess this goes to the implicit probability distribution over the ensemble numbers (with some large unknown weight on “other” I suppose). Assuming the initial conditions update between runs, is there a physics/ingestion reason for the updated initial conditions to be closer to the control than any other perturbed member?

Sure, but why the control as opposed to p587 or whatever? They have equal weight, right?  Not being pissy; honestly trying to understand. 

Why is there any reason to look at the control (as opposed to any other ensemble member), when the op has the same initial conditions with higher resolution? Isn’t the main point of the control to diagnose the impact of the loss of resolution on the ensemble?

5 minutes ago, Kmlwx said:

The improvement of satellite derived data has helped a lot. Of course, having a balloon or other sounding is the gold standard - but modern weather satellites can sample those "data sparse" regions pretty well at this point. I would agree that the days of using that as an explanation are mostly behind us. Add in aircraft data and you've got a nice data suite available for the models even without having balloon launches everywhere. 

But how much airplane data is there these days?