Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,586
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    23Yankee
    Newest Member
    23Yankee
    Joined

December 16/17 Winter Event


MN Transplant
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ellinwood said:

No changes... gradient area near I-95 is boom or bust at this point. Leaning slightly toward bust near I-95, but this isn't worth micro-editing.

Thank you as always @Ellinwood. Your maps are seriously one of the very few I share with friends and fam. Apprec!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, WinterWxLuvr said:

Also take a look at the precip maps at 42. Toggle between the 12z and 6z runs. You can see a pronounced counterclockwise turn. I think that’s significant if you’re hoping for a temp crash and a burst of snow on the backend

Although I am definitely rooting for that as part of the outcome, I'd favor a good slug/thump of WAA on the front end to lay a nice base of snow and get some good rates. That could also help keep the column cool if we do get the secondary snow from any wraparound. Keep watching those h7/h85 depictions...those closing off is part of our recipe to do well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

Also take a look at the precip maps at 42. Toggle between the 12z and 6z runs. You can see a pronounced counterclockwise turn. I think that’s significant if you’re hoping for a temp crash and a burst of snow on the backend

his rebuttal to you is going to be 2 pages long and I swear i'm going to quote it 5 times

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

Also take a look at the precip maps at 42. Toggle between the 12z and 6z runs. You can see a pronounced counterclockwise turn. I think that’s significant if you’re hoping for a temp crash and a burst of snow on the backend

Last second trends always make an accurate forecast practically impossible. Now it's up to mets to gamble and extrapolate the  models even further NW cause the models are playing catch up and won't quite make it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wxtrix said:

our upper air temps never go above freezing on that run so i don't think it's west.

Agreed trixie. I think in reality the surface reflection isn't indicative of where the true LP center is. Mesoscale differences aside, a more wound up system that does cause the mid levels to close off/stack for us might also be what is giving the double barrel look where we're seeing a low over the bay instead of over OC/right off the coast. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, baltosquid said:

And the weenie version of the same map...

I'm gonna pay attention to Frederick's totals to see if the HREF is picking up on the jackpot. No grades will be given but it will be fun to check.

snowfall_024h_max.ma.f04800.png

That jackpot appears to be right through Emmitsburg.  Well positioned for the win on this weenie map @North Balti Zen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

psu what is causing the western shift of the track? Is it a more wound up system?

Death by a thousand paper cuts.  The high has trended SLIGHTLY NE of where it was days ago.  The confluence in the NE weakened some.  The 50/50 moves out slightly faster...and the storm slowed down 6-12 hours...increasing the spacing between the two and allowing for more ridging in front of it.  I was always bothered by how far west the upper level trough was going neutral and starting to lift, we needed all those other things to offset and they went the wrong way.  Some problems that I think the globals had a hard time seeing at range...that are now coming into focus (NAM saw it from jump) was the without a closed off mid and upper level circulation (ERS talked about this) there is nothing to stop the easterly flow north of the low from blasting way NW.  Add in all the warm water and that is shifting the boundary west...and the low track right with it.  I don't think there is any one thing to point to that did this...it was a lot of things that all went the wrong way...and that was partly why this was a slow bleed and not a sudden shift.  No one factor suddenly got a LOT worse...they all just degraded along the margins a little.  IMO what hurt us most was just a little too much spacing between the 50/50 combined with the trough digging in a little too far west then lifting instead of amplifying along the east coast.  The other factors like warm water and less confluence and shallow cold could have overcome that if they had all trended perfectly...but the warts in the overall synoptic setup required a lot else to go perfect...for a time it seemed like they all would.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, psuhoffman said:

Death by a thousand paper cuts.  The high has trended SLIGHTLY NE of where it was days ago.  The confluence in the NE weakened some.  The 50/50 moves out slightly faster...and the storm slowed down 6-12 hours...increasing the spacing between the two and allowing for more ridging in front of it.  I was always bothered by how far west the upper level trough was going neutral and starting to lift, we needed all those other things to offset and they went the wrong way.  Some problems that I think the globals had a hard time seeing at range...that are now coming into focus (NAM saw it from jump) was the without a closed off mid and upper level circulation (ERS talked about this) there is nothing to stop the easterly flow north of the low from blasting way NW.  Add in all the warm water and that is shifting the boundary west...and the low track right with it.  I don't think there is any one thing to point to that did this...it was a lot of things that all went the wrong way...and that was partly why this was a slow bleed and not a sudden shift.  No one factor suddenly got a LOT worse...they all just degraded along the margins a little.  IMO what hurt us most was just a little too much spacing between the 50/50 combined with the trough digging in a little too far west then lifting instead of amplifying along the east coast.  The other factors like warm water and less confluence and shallow cold could have overcome that if they had all trended perfectly...but the warts in the overall synoptic setup required a lot else to go perfect...for a time it seemed like they all would.  

So, what do we look for now for some last minute respite? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BTRWx's Thanks Giving said:

Do ensemble max charts even belong here?

Only dropping it in for the fun of it! The mean is of course what we should be looking at. Though some features are maybe easier to see in something like the max, like the frederick jackpot. There's already some better snowfall there in the mean to hint at better rates there but the max really highlights that at least one of the models in the blend likes that area. For what it's worth, the 00z run ALSO pegged northern Frederick for good totals through 00z Thursday, which is why I'm keen to see how that verifies. It's visible on both the mean and max.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Death by a thousand paper cuts.  The high has trended SLIGHTLY NE of where it was days ago.  The confluence in the NE weakened some.  The 50/50 moves out slightly faster...and the storm slowed down 6-12 hours...increasing the spacing between the two and allowing for more ridging in front of it.  I was always bothered by how far west the upper level trough was going neutral and starting to lift, we needed all those other things to offset and they went the wrong way.  Some problems that I think the globals had a hard time seeing at range...that are now coming into focus (NAM saw it from jump) was the without a closed off mid and upper level circulation (ERS talked about this) there is nothing to stop the easterly flow north of the low from blasting way NW.  Add in all the warm water and that is shifting the boundary west...and the low track right with it.  I don't think there is any one thing to point to that did this...it was a lot of things that all went the wrong way...and that was partly why this was a slow bleed and not a sudden shift.  No one factor suddenly got a LOT worse...they all just degraded along the margins a little.  IMO what hurt us most was just a little too much spacing between the 50/50 combined with the trough digging in a little too far west then lifting instead of amplifying along the east coast.  The other factors like warm water and less confluence and shallow cold could have overcome that if they had all trended perfectly...but the warts in the overall synoptic setup required a lot else to go perfect...for a time it seemed like they all would.  

you're analysis is always impeccable. are you saying this is a fail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...