brooklynwx99

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

the entire longwave pattern is completely different on the GFS and ECMWF. laughable at this range

i mean, I know what he meant, but the indices don't mean anything. it's all in the nuances of the flow weather comes down to luck like 80% of the time. all good patterns do is raise odds, not guarantee anything

wtf is right. what does this even mean

the GEFS has actually gotten stronger with the TPV lobe press compared to 00z

i understand that. we just have to see if those changes are legitimate or if there are other changes in store that’ll help the eventual outcome all I’m personally looking for is a strong system to be consistently modeled somewhere near the coast. the GFS has the thing nearly OTS and the ECMWF cuts it to Buffalo that is the range of outcomes right now, which is pretty common for this time frame

all that matters at this range is that there’s a large system that’s likely to develop. could run along the coast. could go out to sea. could hit the benchmark if people would like to assign unhealthy expectations and emotionally agonize over something 7 days away, then so be it, but it’s best to just sit tight and see what happens at this range

straight up triple phaser. beautiful evolution aloft it's becoming clear that there's a lot of ways to score with this potential system... that's how you know the pattern is good

GFS still shows a nuke. no need to even look at the surface

this is really all you have to see about the EPS. bonkers for this far out

un-freaking-real

Euro has a classic progression. all that really needs to be said here... the potential is through the roof

my god. classic look here for a NYC - BOS crusher, about all you can ask for at this range