February 2013 mid-long range disco thread Part 2

[Ian]

I think don sutherland is calling for 6"+ in DC for March.

[Bob Chill]

I think don sutherland is calling for 6"+ in DC for March.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think this is the worst year for the mid-range guys (2-4 week leads). Not knocking anybody because it's not reasonable to expect accuracy but there has been a lot of storm window whiffs in the last 6 weeks or so. I'm sure it can be spun so it looks better than it is but from vantage point it's been fruitless speculation.

Wes has nailed the 2 week leads better than a supercomputer and phin has nailed our yards like a Medium.

[Bob Chill]

I like the 500 panel @ 174. Not a big signal but definitely something that can break a streak in the ma. That big closed ull and 850 low is going to spin all kinds of stuff around it. I'll take a couple vort passes underneath something like that than praying for a coastal or miller b to do something. Keep it simple stupid.

[Ian]

Maybe I'm wrong but I think this is the worst year for the mid-range guys (2-4 week leads). Not knocking anybody because it's not reasonable to expect accuracy but there has been a lot of storm window whiffs in the last 6 weeks or so. I'm sure it can be spun so it looks better than it is but from vantage point it's been fruitless speculation.

Wes has nailed the 2 week leads better than a supercomputer and phin has nailed our yards like a Medium.

Pretty bad last winter too. I think there is something to temps and pattern. Precip/snow seems like a guess.

[stormtracker]

It is time to start looking toward chasing if you want to see snow.  Snow while chasing isn't the same as snow here at home, but hard times call for extreme measures.  The extended looks terrible for us.   Great Lakes Lows just snuffing us out.

[Ji]

Our storm keeps getting pushed back. Now march 7

[Ian]

Our storm keeps getting pushed back. Now march 7

Originally slated for Dec 5

[WinterWxLuvr]

Our storm keeps getting pushed back. Now march 7

You're chasing gold at the end of the rainbow. It's not there. Best just pray for a few hundredths extra each time we get a chance with temps cold....like Friday.

[psuhoffman]

It is time to start looking toward chasing if you want to see snow.  Snow while chasing isn't the same as snow here at home, but hard times call for extreme measures.  The extended looks terrible for us.   Great Lakes Lows just snuffing us out.

I am going to Vermont this weekend to ski, so I guess I will see another one that way. 

[Bob Chill]

I'm sticking inside of 192. I like the setup for a small event. If that big closed ull is really going to happen then I'll take my chances with some energy rounding the bottom.

The second cutter may try to run something into some cold too. Roll of nickels.

[Ji]

Sorry about the meltdown last night. DC is as good as Boston for snow

[Amped]

Even the most prolific complainers, cancelers, and punters are here posting every day or 2. Nobody has given up.

 

I gave up in mid January.   I am regretting it now that I had my 2" in February.

 

It will not snow again this winter mark my words, Next.

[TalcottWx]

Absolutely. No doubt.

In 09-10"?

[WEATHER53]

Well, the pattern is active, messy, and blocky. At least there's a lot of ways to accidentally get some snow. I'm going even odds on a 2"+ event for some of us or a virtual shutout between now and march 10th. The models may want to make us cry with gl lows and wasted coastals but you can't deny the blocking and consistent nice placements of hp's in se canada. LR guessing isn't worth it anyway. Just 5 days ago the Friday storm was a 3-6 front end pasting. Even the beloved euro said it was.

It gets a lot easier to deal with when one finally accepts the reality that models do not latch onto a "most likely" scenario and then continue along that line(of consistency) until Compelling information necessitates a change.  That would be a good way to operate.  Instead, models produce micro managed results where a change from a 1040 to 1037 high on Hudson Bay results in a coastal low turning into a cutter. Every permutation of every minor change gets thrown into the mix every six hours.  This inefficiency is disguised in terms like "chaos" and you end up with quite different outcomes which effectively cover All the outcomes.

[psuhoffman]

Burke? Jay? Smuggs?

Never done Burke. Love the trees at jay and Smuggs. Prob can't get that far this weekend. Might settle for killington okemo or Stratton. If they get a foot of snow any mountain is fun with the exception of snowshoe. They groom every trail no matter what and ruin powder days. Also have to pick a mtn that isn't likely to have wind problems Sunday.

[WinterWxLuvr]

Anyone see potential for Monday night?

[MichaelScott]

It gets a lot easier to deal with when one finally accepts the reality that models do not latch onto a "most likely" scenario and then continue along that line(of consistency) until Compelling information necessitates a change.  That would be a good way to operate.  Instead, models produce micro managed results where a change from a 1040 to 1037 high on Hudson Bay results in a coastal low turning into a cutter. Every permutation of every minor change gets thrown into the mix every six hours.  This inefficiency is disguised in terms like "chaos" and you end up with quite different outcomes which effectively cover All the outcomes.

I wouldn't say the inefficiency is disguised by chaos because quite simply it is chaos. The stochastic nature of the mathematical models underlying the graphical output we get every 6 hours perfectly explains why you see one track with a 1040 high and a completely different one with a 1036 high. It's because the models used are highly sensitive to the initial observational data plugged into the model. And, if you know a thing or two about approximating partial differential equations, then you also understand why the models become so inaccurate with the small details in the long range (basis of chaos theory). I feel like not enough credit is given to the models for how often they get the general gist of how the atmosphere will evolve. It really is pretty great, but I understand the desire for more consistent representations. Unfortunately, this isn't how the physics of the atmosphere operates as we currently understand it (which is to say, we don't understand it all that well. probably because most physicists are more concerned with fundamental problems in the universe than how far ahead in time the MA can be assured that it won't snow) . 

I think what you may want, instead, is to simply look at ensemble means instead of looking at individual runs if you want just a little more consistency (but don't expect that consistency out to day ten).

[needbiggerboat]

The solution in and of itself is not a reason to not invest in medium/long range progs...as chris87 and dtk remind us, if a model shows a solution, it is physically possible.  But, as we all know, medium/long range progs should be used for generalities, not specifics.  

 

When "physically possible" leads to a high probability expectation of an occurrence, it leads to the various levels of sad on display here.

[psuhoffman]

It gets a lot easier to deal with when one finally accepts the reality that models do not latch onto a "most likely" scenario and then continue along that line(of consistency) until Compelling information necessitates a change. That would be a good way to operate. Instead, models produce micro managed results where a change from a 1040 to 1037 high on Hudson Bay results in a coastal low turning into a cutter. Every permutation of every minor change gets thrown into the mix every six hours. This inefficiency is disguised in terms like "chaos" and you end up with quite different outcomes which effectively cover All the outcomes.

The guidance we have is just that guidance. The models are not meant to be a forecast. They are a tool. The type of program you talk about would be more consistent but also more wrong. If it latched onto the wrong outcome this persistence idea of yours would mean the following runs would be stuck on that wrong idea. At least now we can see all the perms and how volatile a setup is and then apply some meteorology to it and come up with a working forecast. Furthermore the guidance is very impressive now. These issues are mostly in 4 day plus lead times. That is forever in met terms. Used to be we were lucky to get details right 24 hours out. Now we look at details 48 and 72 hours out and usually have a good idea. 5 days used to be crazy fiction territory. Just cause the gfs runs to 15 days doesn't make day 5 short range. Your expectations are unreasonable.

[needbiggerboat]

It is time to start looking toward chasing if you want to see snow.  Snow while chasing isn't the same as snow here at home, but hard times call for extreme measures.  The extended looks terrible for us.   Great Lakes Lows just snuffing us out.

 

Area residents that need snow to be happy should schedule a chase every year.  So much has to fall together perfectly to even give the average 15ish inches of annual snowfall.

[Wonderdog]

I wouldn't say the inefficiency is disguised by chaos because quite simply it is chaos. The stochastic nature of the mathematical models underlying the graphical output we get every 6 hours perfectly explains why you see one track with a 1040 high and a completely different one with a 1036 high. It's because the models used are highly sensitive to the initial observational data plugged into the model. And, if you know a thing or two about approximating partial differential equations, then you also understand why the models become so inaccurate with the small details in the long range (basis of chaos theory). I feel like not enough credit is given to the models for how often they get the general gist of how the atmosphere will evolve. It really is pretty great, but I understand the desire for more consistent representations. Unfortunately, this isn't how the physics of the atmosphere operates as we currently understand it (which is to say, we don't understand it all that well. probably because most physicists are more concerned with fundamental problems in the universe than how far ahead in time the MA can be assured that it won't snow) . 

I think what you may want, instead, is to simply look at ensemble means instead of looking at individual runs if you want just a little more consistency (but don't expect that consistency out to day ten).

Well, it sems that the general gist for the end of the month into early March is blocking and a - NAO as seen on this latest GFS run with the storm that sits in the Atlantic to the east of us. That massive GL low had better not weaken earlier than currently progged or else we in the MA might get lucky after all. My general impression is it wouldn't take much to get that storm on the coast where we want it and where it was modeled a few days ago

[PhineasC]

Area residents that need snow to be happy should schedule a chase every year.  So much has to fall together perfectly to even give the average 15ish inches of annual snowfall.

Whereas 3-4 hours west it snows at the drop of a hat. Just wait for the first big spring paste bomb in the mountains of MD/WV and head out for it. 

[Heisy]

I live in Philly, another snow starved area and actually made my own personal storm chase for the recent Boston Blizzard. It was worth it. Like stormtracker said it isn't the same feeling as "home snow", but definitely satisfies the craving..................until about 24 hours after it ends. 

[wxdude64]

Never done Burke. Love the trees at jay and Smuggs. Prob can't get that far this weekend. Might settle for killington okemo or Stratton. If they get a foot of snow any mountain is fun with the exception of snowshoe. They groom every trail no matter what and ruin powder days. Also have to pick a mtn that isn't likely to have wind problems Sunday.

Well, that rules out Jay, although you said you couldn't get that far north, they just as bad as 'Shoe on the wind dept. Killington doesn't do well in heavy winds either. Winds finally eased up....temp has dropped 5 degrees in last hour here.

[Ian]

this is long.. someone start a new one