Typhoon Tip

That ICANT model would drop about 15” along EEN to ASH

Don’t have a problem with colder solutions at all… I wrote plenty of rational reasons and solutions why those colder solutions should be the ones to go with. Yet just because a couple of models tweaked north by whatever amt we automatically have to go with that… ?Sounds a little neurotic to me without having any specific reasons to assume that’s the case. And I don’t buy just because the vmax is n. Plenty of examples of all snow overrunning events where that was the case in the past. Wind max is not really overcoming the llv boundary resistance; it’s going to be a deeper colder air mass; the overrunning is going up a steeper slope. Think that it’s as north as it can go in those north solutions. The only way it can go north is if the scaffolding/confluence significantly changes. That’s certainly possible …will have to see

I’d have to beat 12 inches in a single dose for that to be true at this location northern Middlesex county

that 4-6" band down there could be the higher impact, too, with a mix of IP/ZR integrating that at 27 F

Guys ... Euro run is within the latitude of noise/margin for error for this range with some to even spare. There's really no need for reactionary - Aside, I bet dimes to donuts it's a pube south and outlier wrt its ens mean. The GEFs/oper GFS is my package of choice for this day. We'll see what future cycles do... 18z Euro goes tick S more, then tomorrow it goes back ... blah blah ..rinse repeat XANAX - thank you for playing the d-drip two step

That's actually impressive for an ensemble mean - even at 3 to 3.5 days lead. Obviously there is less divergence between the operational and the respective members that weight that average. ... heh. wow. But the > 6" being in the 90th percentile or higher at this range may be both one helluva testament to modern modeling technology, but a red flag to take this seriously. Ray or whomever mentioned the last hour may be right that this could either rival or become the better performing system for the season thus far, for the interior Pike to southern NH region. I also don't want to leave out the CT-RI crew. I think this can pin a ZR axis, with a roar of sleet/snow mix rolling off roof eaves and piling up along tire hubs just N. Not sure if that will reach warning criteria ice where does, but it's a nasty event down there too.

Yeah ... now for some attempts at sensible caveats. I realize my tenor has been rather bullish this morning - not just me! Look at the f'n models... But, the speed in which this event is translating through is nothing shy of an unsung amazement in this modeling cinema. It's actually sped up in the last day .. day and half -worth of runs. The primary seclusion --> "secondary" ( if we wanna call it that ...) commitment --> escape sequencing covers some 400 miles of x-coordinate distance from 06z to 18z Friday ... That's insane. The rad is going to be sending pixelation at haulin' ass speeds. That may limit this. Scott also brought up a very good point about the longitudinal aspect of the open wave, tending to currier the mid level lift away at bit of an acceleration over the model position of QPF. We have to remember when looking at QPF charts: that means as of the moment the chart is drawn... What that means is that it may not actually be coming down as hard as the QPF looks at that hourly/time in question - it could already be in the books. This situation could snow 4-5" ...maybe 6" in the IB/front-side, then 3-4" on the quasi CCB as the low is escaping. We go above QPF, but not hugely so, due to these offsets. J

Glad you put it that way ... Because ( oops ) I realized I said QPF in the context of present model suite, but what I was thinking when typing that was "compared to SWFE climo" - - i mean we both know that's usually a 4-6 with lollies to 8" type standard aspect. But because these peripheral mechanics are in play, we up-side this considerably. How far? ugh - we still have 3 days and truck load of model cycles, but I would not be shocked if these are upped by 1.5 if not a factor of 2, **IF** present synoptic metrical layout holds.

Been hammering this facet ( I know ...) but, in addition to you being not only right, this https://www.pivotalweather.com/model.php?m=gfs&p=300wh_nb&rh=2022022200&fh=84&r=na&dpdt=&mc= ...over -saddling the region with superb evac, **ADDS** to your assessment. Dude, this is going to over-achieve ( I feel ...) - as a back office/water cooler muse... But unless these metrics resolve differently, this will probably outdo the QPF max zones because there will be impossible to pin-point uncertainties wrt to meso banding ... forced by organizing frontogen/UVM slots by that diffluent mechanical layout there.

It does ... but this system has some unique synoptic aspects that off-set .. .The NAM's NW bias is competing and it's re-orienting the flow away from other guidance' that are proven superior at this range, just so it can sniff - mm ... red flag. In other words, it seems likely - to me - that it is wrong in the first place, so the warm tongues won't be there anyway - I haven't actually seen the run, just sayn'. That said, even in these solutions, it's still an impacting winter storm - ...it's hyper focusing either way.

Let me also remind y'all ... for the 1,034th time ... the NAM's 48 + range tends to NW bias with synoptic features. I mean that's part and parcel in why the NAM cannot be trusted overall, in this time range of present cycle ... because for other reasons aside, that one right there is a consummate correction. We don't seem to argue about that when all models are out to sea, and it is the lone model that has coastal clipping the area at 78 hours - go wonder.. .But, this run strikes me as almost meaningless due to that model's tenured bias, until such time as Euro/GFS blend ( and the GGEM's been very agreeable too - ), do the same.

Christ ..hahaha... over a 72+ hour NAM, where/whence synoptic precision - no less... - is the requirement? You guys are eye-shifting around like Gollum slithers between the lichen covered rocks of middle-modeled earth seeking the precious paranoia

Update: Deadlocked on a warning event for mix/snow issues CT-RI with ice option S, and tending to majority snow N of the Pike at this point. 4 days ...well, really 3.5 days away, and the 00z individual versions have very little spread compared to the blended/consensus is convincing. Some longer thoughts: Where is mainly snow... little pinging cannot be totally eliminated with mid levels tending N of ALB-Logan axis. It would need be a very elevated warm layer though. What this thing has going for snow enthusiasts, is that the +PP weighting/wedging in from the N is circumstantially nearly ideal in both magnitude and duration - not too suppressive; not sliding east or west just in time to f it all up. I'm actually rather impressed at how it seems to almost need to be there during the whole show. Interesting... I almost suspect the ratios to be better than 12::1 by the time we're nearing Rt 2 latitude along N. Mass, and higher N. Almost has a 1994 vibe with dry snow hosting pingers the size of small hail rattling the Pike with T's the mid to upper 20s. The cold wedge is deep rather tight to the boundary extending E just S of LI. It's a good candidate for a thin but important ZR band - obviously we'll need to finer tune these transition zones later on. The placement and power of a strong diffluent (evac) jet, extending slantwise upward from 500 thru the 300 mb, has been a leitmotif in the guidance for this, set to align from upstate NY to the Maritime of Canada overnight Thursday through the 18z or so Friday. That coincides with the QPF snow shield blooming over W-N-E above the mix corridor, but doing so unusually far into NNE. Without doing discrete analysis ... I'm reasonably certain that expansion is anomalous, relative to this system's centric kinematics, and is being driven by that forcing. I also think that stretches the UVM some vertically and we may see some banding in the snow as the atm tends to organize/frontogenic ... The SGZ tends to be less than ideal in these situations, but I'm curious if said extension by jet forcing might lift the growth into a better depth of the sounding. I don't think this system has quite enough punch to really toast the 700mb. It's a oddly detailed take from 3.5 days out, but frankly ...these synoptic metrics have been coherent in all guidance/ens for days now. The metrics are correct; I'm speculating (also) how they may synergize a winter storm performance... Excluding something extraordinary as yet to modeled challenges ( and modicum of correctness to this ... lol), I don't see these synoptics changing. This system is characterized by: weak centric mechanics benefiting from strong peripheral jet fields, with +PWAT anomaly forced over boundary with a steep angular ascent. That ascent then gets exaggerated ( some) relative to 1000mb type storm climo, by the former ... basically an over-achiever incarnate. A weak to low moderate scaled cyclone, with very good QPF mechanics, in an unusually ideal polar high position. I don't wanna get into snow totals yet from this range too discretely but ... the climo for this sort of SWFE ordeal is 6" with lolly's to 10? I don't have a problem with at minimum going mid way in that range... leave it at that for now.

00z GFS looks modestly colder but it’s moving faster.

Well like I said earlier and I still believe is the case… There’s a limit to how far this ordeal can go north. Models were pressed up against the synoptic wall. 18z sag not surprising. They’ll probably try to make another run or two at a North solution but they’ll keep bouncing off the physical limitation of mlv confluence, and llv boundary layer resistance

Heh typo

The signal for the 27 .. 29th has been there almost as long as this one currently being monitored, but it's been more so in principle than practice - meaning hinted, but not coherently shown. Some of the guidance is closer to doing so, but like Superstorm93's post is close but still just a hint. My take on that is that the gradient is too much. The N/stream would like come down and subsume phase type, but the lower latitude curvature has too many isohypses and the wind velocity is out pacing - it's complex but it can't sync up that way. ...For the time being There also another signal around 2-4th of Mar.

We had that at 00z actually ... I posted the charts to demo page 7 or so

This isn't the thread for that but ... be leery of that assumption. The correlations heading through March for -EPO may not be the same in March as is such in D J or F - just be warned... The wave lengths overall begin shortening pretty coherently from Mar 1 to 30 ... That means a -EPO block may not transitively force a favorable look this far away ... March is a spring month that by virtue of our geography ... we've always claimed as a winter affair. But, that's bit of a circumstantial ownership. Some years simply don't product in March ... In fact, that seems to be more common since 2000, ... definitely since 2010 - even though there's been some blue bombs too. There are other aspect more circumstantial to now ...The larger hemisphere's circulation mode is only vaguely coupled to the La Nina base-state. The MJO has been for the most part ... irrelevant this season. It's attempted to move from Phase 7 ...twice, and twice failed.. .bouncing around for 10 days along the interface between 7 .. 8, ultimately deteriorating it's momentum to nothing. This time, we have a wave momentum that is strengthen back over the India region, which is correlated to the La Nina - the two may together force the atmosphere to "re"couple to the La Nina. It's unclear what that will mean for pattern, when combining that uncertainty ..with the seasonal relaxation stuff above. Bottom line...there's competing signals here.

Machine guidance taking a hit today ... Classic spring nape job on MET, even though it's only Feb 20 ... But, kfit, kash, kbed... were all 49 to 50, and are all presently 55, 55, 54.. probably good for a tick or two yet

It's interesting ... that combination of AN snow with AN temp - it's fitting that Phinny is extolling the frustrations of a dwindling snow pack. I guess buried in the averages of +5, there was sufficient melt events. I mean, there's lots of ways to get numbers that elevated... Persistent nightly lows being elevated. Or a couple of isolated whopper warm spells... etc... and they melt more(less). Whatever the cause and method of assault, having above normal snow result in below normal pack, is an interesting achievement - particularly in any context that includes the word Maine -

I'm curious... that far north and climate specific region, that would be a helluva climate anomaly to remove snow all the way down to earth entirely, before March 1. I gotta assume already your snow is probably corn variety? As you know.. that by virtue of density is going to take more energy to melt - like cold in the bank. I think you'll have some left. Either way, the anomaly is already logging - You know ... just a "hot" take on matter. To me it's really spring already. I mean this is what happens in spring, early spring life in New England - you get these warm ( relative ) days, followed by snow chances. And it's probably a kind of sneaky climate change aspect, because we would've gotten this more akin to March and April some 30 years ago. But in 2022 and a couple of decades of hockey-stick CC acceleration ... it's starting to happen in February and March's. So shift up. But it's also not black and white... Just as other Febs and Mar had some fantastic warm affairs in transience over recent years ( as part of this CC suggestion - ), the variabiility that extends back into the cryo realm is still in play. We could be 80 twice and get a blizzard on March 25 for a spring diabatic blue gem monster that pukes 52" along the spine of Whites... and still verify a +6 F month.

Yeah, that looks like orographic forcing. You live by mountain life and you get the life sometimes I guess -

Oh, I didn't see that Brian - ha. Yeah, that's a bitch... In fact, that's settling S... I wonder

I think today may mangle the guidance some on that... What I mean is, we're likely to over-achieve by a little, with this unabated solar going on through a modestly mixing +5 C at 925 mb ( assuming that's the BL height, but it could be a wee-bit higher...)...etc..etc... and MET was ( last checked - ) 49 at ASH ( which is what I use considering it's like 10 minutes as the crow flies from Ayer). We are already 45 at enough home sites/Wunder network and by sensible appeal to go ahead and assume we challenge that high pretty much by noon already. Digress... but this air mass may factor in the the BL mechanics of those guidance when we initialize later today - interesting to see if that happens. They are in situ, so if the initializations are cooler than is actual, it might be a red flag that this is a rare scenario where wedging in SE NH actually fails some.