brooklynwx99

looks like the GFS has fused the two S/Ws. really interesting. no idea where this will go, but I can assure that it won't be like the ECMWF in its evolution

18z GEFS improved snowfall for most

we will absolutely take at 7 days out

yeah, the GFS was more amplified because of the S/W. the synoptic evolution is absolutely nothing like the ECMWF this run was just typical Day 7 noise, not a step towards the ECMWF

the more important thing here is that the GFS held serve synoptically and the ICON made a big shift towards it if the ECMWF makes the same synoptic changes, it bodes much better for a coastal storm. keep in mind that this is still 7 days out

I'll take this at 7 days out. the good thing is that the evolution is absolutely nothing like the ECMWF there's going to be a lot of noise at this range, which is expected anyway

we're seeing better confluence downstream. might be more amped, but this is also nice to see. heights are much more zonal into New England I'm happy with this run overall

S/W also coming in more meridionally, allowing it to dig more and have a chance at passing S. TPV also nudging into NE more than the last run... look at the more zonal orientation of the wind barbs in PA, for example this run will produce another monster storm

prepare for takeoff

once you get to days 4-5, the differences are glaring

not even close. if the ECMWF ticks towards the GFS it's game on. the GFS should produce again this run

just comical. not even close GFS should be big again

GFS is not even on the same planet as the ECMWF with the handling of the TPV. not even close look at the separation in BC. two distinct pieces

GFS is not even on the same planet as the ECMWF with the handling of the TPV. not even close look at the separation in BC. two distinct pieces

GFS is not even on the same planet as the ECMWF with the handling of the TPV. not even close look at the separation in BC. two distinct pieces instead of one congealed pile of crap

GFS steadfast with its handling of the AK vort

GFS likely going to hold serve. handling the AK vort pretty much exactly the same

the ICON made a sizeable shift towards the GFS in terms of its handling of the TPV this is likely due to the stronger AK vort, which slows it down and allows the some of the TPV to slip out ahead of it. if the GFS holds, it might actually be handling that piece of energy well... we'll see in a bit

the change in the ICON's handling of the TPV comes down to a change in the strength of the AK vort it made a sizeable shift towards the GFS with a stronger vort, which leads to a much more favorable TPV configuration. if the GFS holds, it might be onto something after all

the pattern supports a very large storm, and people take that and assume a blizzard is guaranteed... it doesn't work like that this is why it's so frustrating trying to communicate potential. people come up with grandiose ideas in their imaginations and forget that this is a matter of a 1-2% chance rising to like 30-40%. it's still unlikely, just much, much more likely than normal

also, it's worth noting that the CMC and ECMWF have a tendency to overamplify systems in the medium range. we saw this a lot last January when the ECMWF kept cooking up blizzards that never happened. not saying that it's wrong. more so that if it was going to be wrong, this is how it would do it

you're correct about the movement of the energy in the SW... just not sure if it really has any impact compared to the other factors! good question tho

this is the difference between the two outcomes. everything after this is gravy the GFS has a much more amplified vort diving out of AK... this means that it travels slower and allows the TPV to get out ahead of it, leading to the two-piece solution the ECMWF has it much flatter, which allows it to catch up and mingle with the TPV, leading to the farther W solution with very little confluence which one is right? there really isn't a way to tell at this point, but we will know in the next 48 hours. I'm sure that we will see some EPS members that amp this up like the GFS and some that flatten it like the ECMWF, leading to considerable spread

this is the difference between the two outcomes. everything after this is gravy the GFS has a much more amplified vort diving out of AK... this means that it travels slower and allows the TPV to get out ahead of it, leading to the two-piece solution the ECMWF has it much flatter, which allows it to catch up and mingle with the TPV, leading to the farther W solution with very little confluence which one is right? there really isn't a way to tell at this point, but we will know in the next 48 hours. I'm sure that we will see some EPS members that amp this up like the GFS and some that flatten it like the ECMWF, leading to considerable spread

this is the difference between the two outcomes. everything after this is gravy the GFS has a much more amplified vort diving out of AK... this means that it travels slower and allows the TPV to get out ahead of it, leading to the two-piece solution the ECMWF has it much flatter, which allows it to catch up and mingle with the TPV, leading to the farther W solution with very little confluence which one is right? there really isn't a way to tell at this point, but we will know in the next 48 hours. I'm sure that we will see some EPS members that amp this up like the GFS and some that flatten it like the ECMWF, leading to considerable spread