brooklynwx99

actually became a lot stronger with the confluence. the GFS probably won't care though and end up cutting to Chicago lmao

much more confluence. it's the most important thing in this setup, and models are going to have fits with it, as per usual. might be one of the hardest things to forecast at range due to the proximity of the TPV this looks great with the potent 500mb low running into strong confluence. would result in heavy precip

nice. big shift south here. hopefully this starts 00z off right

ICON looks like it'll be colder. weaker vort and significantly lower heights downstream due to more confluence

you would think we'd learn after the medium range debacle for the Monday storm doesn't look as good today, but I would not be surprised to see confluence increase again with the blocking finally in place. either way, even with the crappier solutions, a front-end thump is still possible, similar to what the 12z ECMWF OP showed earlier

PDO stands for Pacific Decadal Oscillation

I wouldn’t consider a threat dead at 5 days out. no need. models often do a horrible job with handling confluence I would agree that it’s not looking good, though, but Boston had 12-18” 4 days out for Monday and they’re getting like 2-4” now

GFS is a step in the right direction though. lower heights in SE Canada and a weaker vort

hey, anything is something. stopping the bleeding at least

GFS going to be weaker and south. weaker S/W itself as well as lower heights in SE Canada

i suppose ensembles have been thrown out the window

GEPS actually took a nice step south

GEPS has more confluence. should be good

GEFS is at least slightly improved. more confluence and a slightly weaker vort

we're going to have to find out if the GFS is on crack or not pretty soon. it's just so different from everything else

the ICON isn’t a cutter, it’s a Miller B. it gets shunted due E from the confluence, quite different synoptically from the GFS

that is true. the ECMWF schooled it in the short range with the confluence, though. schooled pretty much every other model

the main difference between the GEFS and EPS (& GEPS for that matter) is the handling of the N and S streams and their effect on the confluence in SE Canada the GEFS keeps much of the vorticity in the trough itself, leading to a higher amplitude S/W and not as much confluence scooting out over SE Canada. this leads to higher heights and the mean storm track to the west of us however, the EPS and GEPS have more of the northern stream moving ahead of the trough, allowing for significantly more confluence over SE Canada, leading to the opposite effect. therefore, we get much a much snowier solution with most of the SLPs tracking offshore tough to say which model has the right idea. I would lead against the GEFS only because it's been inconsistent and it doesn't have as much support as the EPS. the GEFS is also underdispersive and often times will follow the OP, which has been erratic. look how awful of a job it did with the Monday system. the GEFS solution is certainly possible due to a lack of a true semipermanent 50/50 ULL, but so are the solutions of the EPS and GEPS either way, there remains the potential for a significant snowfall event over the NE US, even down to the coast. we should see one camp cave over the next model cycle or two, as we're getting into the 5 day range now

he main difference between the GEFS and EPS (& GEPS for that matter) is the handling of the N and S streams and their effect on the confluence in SE Canada the GEFS keeps much of the vorticity in the trough itself, leading to a higher amplitude S/W and not as much confluence scooting out over SE Canada. this leads to higher heights and the mean storm track to the west of us however, the EPS and GEPS have more of the northern stream moving ahead of the trough, allowing for significantly more confluence over SE Canada, leading to the opposite effect. therefore, we get much a much snowier solution with most of the SLPs tracking offshore tough to say which model has the right idea. I would lead against the GEFS only because it's been inconsistent and it doesn't have as much support as the EPS. the GEFS is also underdispersive and often times will follow the OP, which has been erratic. look how awful of a job it did with the Monday system. the GEFS solution is certainly possible due to a lack of a true semipermanent 50/50 ULL, but so are the solutions of the EPS and GEPS either way, there remains the potential for a significant snowfall event over the NE US, even down to the coast. we should see one camp cave over the next model cycle or two, as we're getting into the 5 day range now

we can see an amped solution like the GFS, don’t get me wrong however, acting like an amped solution is a foregone conclusion is a bit ridiculous at this range. look how Monday’s storm has trended over the last couple of days for NJ… way more confluence over the last two model cycles. anything from a cutter to suppression to a MECS is on the table, as per usual 6 days out

GEPS is absolutely insane

GEFS did the same thing and it’s had two colder runs in a row

meh, it’s one run. GEFS did the same crap at 06z just to revert back colder. wouldn’t make too much out of it unless it consistently showed that

yeah the confluence keeps ticking stronger. makes sense tho, as the models are probably “feeling” the developing block, this is the adjustment you’d expect them to make, if anything I would feel great if I was in CT, especially Valley west. a solid 4-8” event is becoming more of a probability

GEFS is improved again… more confluence over SE Canada and a slightly weaker S/W lead to a colder, farther S track. this is a monster signal for this range