Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,432
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    elliotth120790@gmail.com
    Newest Member
    [email protected]
    Joined

January Mid/Long Range Disco 2


WinterWxLuvr
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Wonderdog said:

Any hints that it could go negative,?

I bet we have a whole lotta new solutions to get through before the music stops over the next few days.  the butterfly effect of moving some piece of the puzzle even a tick in one direction...remember the bulge/no bulge of the h5 shortwave in AK...I was going nuts looking for a bulge around the holidays

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

He is right but isn't this symbiotic also.  The 850 low, just like the low at all levels, is impacted by the thermal profile/boundary.  One reason the 850 low ends up so far north on the op GFS is also related to the fact the cold boundary is so far north.  If the thermal profile was colder I doubt the 850 ends up way up there given that synoptic progression.  

Sure is. Which is why I’m glad to see a defined 850 low in a good spot for us on the GEFS. Your point about the airmass is well taken. Only way we improve that is if we go back to the pig 50-50 pushing in a fresh airmass ahead like we’ve seen on a couple Op runs. Otherwise it’s going to be trash. Question is if it’s just tolerable enough…I’d wager if we get an exact GEFS solution with a wound up low, we’d mostly frozen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maestrobjwa said:

You're really not wrong about that--I mean seriously. Any lurkers here that were psych majors? I'd pay to hear a psychoanalysis of this forum, lol I mean I'd legit welcome it, actually--many of us have got to learn to cope better, seriously.

Straight up cray cray. But I do love it here 

ER Nurse Practitioner 

 

 

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

1 hour ago, psuhoffman said:

 

Ji is right. The high is actually in a perfect position.  
AAD5E1FD-39C6-41F0-8FCC-9D8379FD1772.thumb.png.bdc00e7c4afbf31e52badee39934ed60.png

Banana over the top!  The other map only showed the center of highest pressure giving the false impression the high was not ideal. Actually this is a great pressure representation. Can we please stop trying to find excuses. The thermal profile over N America is just so warm that it makes it REALLY difficult and even with a perfect High and low track it might still only end up a mostly rain event. What it did this run was at least mean some frozen to start and a snow event for the mountains. But even with a close to perfect synoptic progression it wasn’t enough to save us because the airmass is just so awful. 

Isn't the storm supposed to create it's own cold air or something?

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WxUSAF said:

Sure is. Which is why I’m glad to see a defined 850 low in a good spot for us on the GEFS. Your point about the airmass is well taken. Only way we improve that is if we go back to the pig 50-50 pushing in a fresh airmass ahead like we’ve seen on a couple Op runs. Otherwise it’s going to be trash. Question is if it’s just tolerable enough…I’d wager if we get an exact GEFS solution with a wound up low, we’d mostly frozen.

I agree...probably.  But if it isn't...it might be towel throw time 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

He is right but isn't this symbiotic also.  The 850 low, just like the low at all levels, is impacted by the thermal profile/boundary.  One reason the 850 low ends up so far north on the op GFS is also related to the fact the cold boundary is so far north.  If the thermal profile was colder I doubt the 850 ends up way up there given that synoptic progression.  

Very true. One of the other reasons for this is the style of storm system this is. This isn't a well formed low tracking across the Deep South then going up the coast. It is one 850mb low over the OH/TN Valley that weakens and gives way to development along the coastal front, while intense synoptic scale forcing takes shape and leads to the deepening on the coast. Where these fronts lineup at this range is anyone's guess. I had another tweet in that thread that goes into the 10-90th climatological percentiles at 850mb, that are exceptionally wide ranging across the region. It highlights how far we have to go before we really see truly what kind of cold air there is to work with.

All that said, my main point was most major winter storms in these parts will have an 850mb low in that vicinity. However, not all 850-750-500-300mb evolutions are the same and neither are the air-masses. For this range, you could just have several shortwaves that aren't phasing and create a mess. In this case, the main system is well agreed upon to be a highly anomalous, significant storm in California. I recall some of the areas worst winter storms also being a big problem for the West Coast. The pattern itself is interesting. But there's time to see how the thermals and frontal positions come together.

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Terpeast said:

By Tuesday-ish, I'll make a decision whether to chase this in Deep Creek/Canaan (and take my family & our sleds with me)... or stay home.

If you do go up there, a few years ago at least, there were some little hills you could sled on near the Deep Creek Discovery center.  The hill right in front of the building was ok and there was a hill behind the one parking lot a few hundred yards away.  Also some trails you can walk around in the snow.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psuhoffman said:

But for there to be WAA precip ahead of any wave there has to be some mid level southerly flow!  That's normal.  If the mid level flow was from the north we would be smoking cirrus lol.  The problem is the airmass just isn't cold enough for the equation we need to work out.  It's that simple.  We can debate the "why isn't it cold enough" but all this attempt to find flaws that just aren't there is annoying.  

Look at all this SE flow.... and it was absolutely sheeting snow at my house in VA at this time.

96SEFLOW.thumb.png.49c073026ea5fd9bb7e21faf34dbd4a3.png

Know what the difference was...it was cold.  The equation worked there because the air mass was cold enough that even with the WAA at the mid levels the profile of the column when mixed was cold enough to support snow.  Anytime we have a wave approaching us from the west there is going to be a southerly flow at the mid levels...and there HAS TO BE or else we wont get precip!  

I am also going to poke at this interpretation but let me be clear your not wrong, we just have different points of view of the same thing.  A different spin.  But I am NOT saying you're wrong.  However, to play devils advocate here...the point of the blocking is to influence the track of mid latitude waves in the way we want, specifically to get one to track just under us and to foster there being higher pressure over the top of it as this happens.   We have that here!  In the micro sense our flow is determined by those local features like the low and high on either side of us.  The "blocking" and "50/50" features are irrelevant once the dominoes have been set in motion and the storm is tracking by us.  Our local flow is dominated by that low near VA beach NOT some feature 1000 miles away.  Those features did their job to get the storm to VA beach.  

 

Now in this case we don't have an NAO block.  But we do have a Hudson High and we both have discussed how that is the next best thing to an NAO block...historically its been the next best way to get a snowstorm absent an NAO block because it simulates much of the same longwave impacts on the mid latitudes near us.  I used 1996 above because it was a product of a Hudson High NOT NAO blocking.  The NAO blocking in December was actually mostly a fail in our area, although NW of DC did get several small snows out of it.  We got more snow in Feb from true blocking...but the 2 snowstorms in early Jan were from a very similar pattern to right now.  Jan 2016 was also a very similar, maybe even more similar despite the opposite enso to this weeks pattern (which maybe isnt shocking since we're in more of a super nino look than a nina).  

 

But the Hudson block does do its job.  There is a perfect banana high over the top on the 12z GFS.  I really don't get the "high is racing out" takes.  As the system is reaching our area the high is bananad over the top of it.  

315870471_gfs_mslpa_us_31(1).thumb.png.1598a3076a19edfa49e8ab5b6c2955f0.png

Yea once the low is up off MD and NJ the high is long gone, but that is normal.  The high is going to have to retreat by that point but it shouldnt matter because once we are on the west side of the low the northerly flow behind the low should save us.  But of course that doesn't matter if the airmass is crap all around us...that northerly flow is just taking warm air from just northeast of us into our area.  

Look at January 2000, where the high is by the time the low is to our latitude.  Its long gone.  

2000.jpg.c4822a0c30905aff86a5208bec54c03e.jpg

But it didn't matter.  I guess I am just saying why do we need to drill down to these super specific reasons why everything wasnt the exact perfect everything we needed when the real issue is pretty obvious to me...its just not cold enough.  In a grand sense the whole airmass over all of north america just might not be cold enough for what we need to make this work no matter the fact that its a pretty freaking awesome synoptic setup and progression that if it was simply colder would lead to a snowstorm.  

 

I am NOT saying we have to get into the elephant in the room.  We can not discuss or debate WHY its too warm.  I am not trying to bring that into here.  I said my peace with that over in the futility thread this morning.  But whether you think its a right now problem or not...to me the only real problem with this setup is the whole airmass just isnt cold enough.  Frankly even on the permutations where the storm cuts inland its not the synoptic setup thats flawed its just so warm the storm is able to meander inland in search of a thermal boundary to ride along.  Had the airmass had any freaking cold at all it would take a more canonical track even in those worse cutter looks IMO given the longwave setup.  

Yes clearly the lack of available cold IS the core issue. My post is predicated on that. Sure the High has to move, but the airmass behind it matters. The flow on the backside of the departing High in conjunction the flow around the low matters. Especially when the airmass is barely cold enough to start with.

More specifically, the panel where Ji was whining about no CAD didn't make any sense. At that point the low was on top of us. Sometimes you way overthink this stuff lol.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

P30 then I retire from this game 

This. Given our winter prospects and the hype or encouraging talk of next winter, just give me a carbon copy of the 2015-2016 winter at this point. Give me the app on Sunday evening, the bomb next weekend and then I'll take a warm, non-snowy winter and enjoy the nice temps and get excited for next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are we looking at 850s for what would be Jan 11th 7:00pm EST here when our storm would be on the 15th?

We need cold to set in prior to a snowstorm most of the time. Our key here was getting some N Stream energy to rotate through NE & SE Canada to help build in HP/confluence. Aka a 50/50. This run you could tell was going to be really bad early on because the confluence is much farther N. It’s one OP run, but ugh….


.
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • WxUSAF unpinned this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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