• Member Statistics

    16,546
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ampongabezo
    Newest Member
    ampongabezo
    Joined
WxUSAF

January Storm Term Threat Discussions (Day 3 - Day 7)

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

It was giving me 8” along the PA line yesterday. Trend. 

Even less with the Kuchera.  Sadly, with the current trends, I fear that by Thursday most of us would take this map.

102787271_ScreenShot2021-01-24at11_20_35AM.png.5dd385f0be484466a0c8abbfb7f8a886.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nw baltimore wx said:

Even less with the Kuchera.  Sadly, with the current trends, I fear that by Thursday most of us would take this map.

102787271_ScreenShot2021-01-24at11_20_35AM.png.5dd385f0be484466a0c8abbfb7f8a886.png

I would give up a limb of the reaper’s choice for that map right now. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ryanconway63 said:

Canadian looks interesting at 84.  not sure where it goes from here

Looks like it will head east

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TPV on the cmc is further north compared to the Gfs.

The cmc actually trended the TPV  further north compared to it run last night. 

That's really what we need.

gfs_z500_vort_us_16.png

gem_z500_vort_us_16.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Canadian looks interesting at 84.  not sure where it goes from here
Less press up top on the Canadian.
So it should be better than the 0z run or in-line 2b9d4f6057789f866bb8cbe2e8128996.jpg

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, osfan24 said:

Agreed. The GEFS is completely worthless. Basically locked into some kind of snowstorm, and now we aren't at all.

The ensembles are only as good as the operational they are based on. They can’t help if the core model is wrong.  Their usefulness is in telling us of the operational had a fluke run and went off on a tangent due to some discreet error even by its own physics.  They offer a scope of variability within the physics of that model. But if the model is wrong about something due to a core bias that flaw will infect the ensembles also.  All the ensembles agreeing with the op said was that the op wasn’t a fluke within its own physics parameters. But ensembles don’t ensure the models physical representations are sound.  You need to compare to other guidance to determine and guess at that. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canadian is better than the GFS but it’s certainly no QPF bomb...we would definitely take its outcome though 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GGEM surface low looks north of its 0z run, but less precipitation. Still a 3-6” event forum wide.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WxUSAF said:

GGEM surface low looks north of its 0z run, but less precipitation. Still a 3-6” event forum wide.

At this point, I think everyone would love a 3-6" event, would be great. But I think we are so scarred up from the past few year that we all kind of knew where this was heading, but still 4 days away. Strange things happen sometimes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WxUSAF said:

GGEM surface low looks north of its 0z run, but less precipitation. Still a 3-6” event forum wide.

In this winter that would be epic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys I’ve done the whole “reason with yourself” thing but better to just rip the bandaid off.  The trends are all the wrong way. And we’re hitting the 100 hour mark where guidance typically doesn’t make huge adjustments to major factors anymore.  Today was a crucial day to hold or see improvement and it went the wrong way.   
 

It’s not OVER but it’s on life support Imo.  let it go. That doesn’t actually have any effect on if this pulls off the rare comeback.   Then it’s still gonna feel great. But don’t torture yourself anymore.  Don't prolong the suffering.  I’m gonna go find something fun to do. Peace. 

  • Like 11
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interaction with the NA trough is the main issue on the last couple GFS runs imo. Doesn't allow the wave to deepen as rapidly/close to the coast. The Euro has had this look, and seems to have been the primary difference when comparing it to the better GFS runs.

1611813600-cQgFMQX7c5w.png

12z  yesterday was still a pretty decent run. Look at the difference:

1611813600-sEhmk5QPMDM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last thing...After my last “emotional” post I should admit I’m clouded by location and expectation. If I was DC south this probably would still hold more interest to me and a lot in here are. And if I was just chasing a few inches I certainly wouldn’t give up. But I was kinda big game hunting and just found out there are only some rabbits and squirrels left in my area so I’m going home to drink a beer instead. If an elk just happens to wander by though....!!!!!

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

The ensembles are only as good as the operational they are based on. They can’t help if the core model is wrong.  Their usefulness is in telling us of the operational had a fluke run and went off on a tangent due to some discreet error even by its own physics.  They offer a scope of variability within the physics of that model. But if the model is wrong about something due to a core bias that flaw will infect the ensembles also.  All the ensembles agreeing with the op said was that the op wasn’t a fluke within its own physics parameters. But ensembles don’t ensure the models physical representations are sound.  You need to compare to other guidance to determine and guess at that. 

So I’m starting to agree with that poster who always pops in to say the models suck.  If an ensemble suite can show that much certainty within 5 days and be wrong then what’s the point of having it at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Chris78 said:

The TPV on the cmc is further north compared to the Gfs.

The cmc actually trended the TPV  further north compared to it run last night. 

That's really what we need.

 

 

Look where the TPV was on the CMC a few runs ago. It still produced a nice snowstorm for the area.

1611835200-A4ZURAlfsss.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CAPE said:

Look where the TPV was on the CMC a few runs ago. It still produced a nice snowstorm for the area.

1611835200-A4ZURAlfsss.png

So what needs to happen? Get the NA trough out of the way to allow to our SW to amplify more/earlier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chris78 said:

So what needs to happen? Get the NA trough out of the way to allow to our SW to amplify more/earlier?

At this juncture, we can point out what we think needs to happen, but not sure any of it is fixable. Probably should root for the TPV to drop the eff in and phase.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:
40 minutes ago, osfan24 said:

at all.

The ensembles are only as good as the operational they are based on. They can’t help if the core model is wrong.  Their usefulness is in telling us of the operational had a fluke run and went off on a tangent due to some discreet error even by its own physics.  They offer a scope of variability within the physics of that model. But if the model is wrong about something due to a core bias that flaw will infect the ensembles also.  All the ensembles agreeing with the op said was that the op wasn’t a fluke within its own physics parameters. But ensembles don’t ensure the models physical representations are sound.  You need to compare to other guidance to determine and guess at that. 

The past few winters it appears all the various model ensembles have had major set backs. Statistically speaking I can not prove it, but one could perceive the overall accuracy has declined. If anything,  achieving phasing in a favorable thermal environment is a losing battle the last three years.  Very frustrating for sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stormtracker said:

Now we await the Euro to finish this off and we can go on the hunt for salvaging February.   We may not be possible?

That says it all: "We may not be possible"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, stormtracker said:

Now we await the Euro to finish this off and we can go on the hunt for salvaging February.   We may not be possible?

Yeah, we are probably 24-48 hours away from officially setting our sights on the big President's Day storm.

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prediction:  Euro shows a slight north tick.  Everyone gets excited and overanalyzes how this may work.  Weather Will shows the same percentage map he has shown the past 3 months. Then we await the HH GFS which pulls the rug.

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still can't believe the arctic oscillation has been negative since December 1st with several dives down below -2 standard deviations, but  only one event to show for it. Will seasonal wavelengths changes help in February,  hard to tell with the outcomes so far. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stormtracker said:

"Which"*

I like the original better: "We may not be possible" really expresses the existential crisis that affects snow lovers in the southern half of eastern North America right now.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, frd said:

Still can't believe the arctic oscillation has been negative since December 1st with several dives down below -2 standard deviations, but  only one event to show for it. Will seasonal wavelengths changes help in February,  hard to tell with the outcomes so far. 

Cold.  We.  Must.  Have.  Cold.  It is clear that the current seasonal thermal profile is not going to support sufficient dynamics to "make its own cold" for significant snow in the eastern CONUS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.