Late February/Early March 2026 Mid-Long Range

[GaWx]

 The model consensus is still forecasting the MJO to be in or near phase 3 for Feb 22-23. Phase 3 has been the coldest MJO phase (based on Baltimore as a representative city) by a good margin when averaged out day by day during the 20 La Niña Februaries since 1975. It has averaged 4 F colder than the avg anomaly for all 566 Feb Niña days since 1975. Keep in mind that Feb Niña has averaged ~2 AN, which is intuitive.

 Regardless, the GEFS progged strong -PNA presents its own challenge.

[mitchnick]

Man, Icon is trying.

[stormtracker]

1 minute ago, mitchnick said:

Man, Icon is trying.

1" to 2" bomb

[soadforecasterx]

Now RGEM has my interest

[psuhoffman]

12 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

I don't care who believes me frankly. But for this forum, it often works. And there's nothing anyone can say that changes my mind. Lol

I am not saying you are wrong...you're not... tendencies within patterns are a real thing. You're right.  What I am saying is...it's not useful for predictive purposes because there are exceptions within those patters but most importantly you don't know when the pattern is going to flip.  

In 2005 we wouldn't have known the pattern was about to flip and go from a total torch to cold and snowy from Jan 20th on.  Same in 2007.  2009 was dry all winter then we got that big snowstorm early March.  2015 flipped in February.  2016 flipped in January.  2018 flipped in March.  2019 flipped from good to bad in late January.  2022 was great in January and then flipped bad in Feb.  

It's pretty rare for a pattern to set in for the whole winter start to finish...sometimes a bad one does and we get 2020 and 2023.  Sometimes a good one does and we get 1996/2003/2010/2014.  But way way way more often the season is a mix and we get some snowy periods and some not snowy periods and end up somewhere between those few great years and few total dreg ones.  And we don't know when the flips are about to happen until they do!  

[psuhoffman]

5 minutes ago, soadforecasterx said:

Now RGEM has my interest

I liked the end of the RGEM very much 

[TSSN+]

Just now, psuhoffman said:

I liked the end of the RGEM very much 

Looked intriguing 

[psuhoffman]

RGEM was significantly more amplified than the ICON at 84 hours...

[psuhoffman]

1 minute ago, TSSN+ said:

Looked intriguing 

seeing how close the ICON was...and comparing them at 84, makes me think it would have ended well.  RGEM was already amplifying the wave.  We need this thing to start developing in the TN valley not relying on that perfect phase capture miller b solution to get anything.  

[baltosquid]

The RGEM dives the trough in a bit more west, deeper and narrower. Would give it room to develop in a more classic way for snow here. Hope it isn’t a blip because that would be much less painful to track than a last minute coastal.

[psuhoffman]

Just now, baltosquid said:

The RGEM dives the trough in a bit more west, deeper and narrower. Would give it room to develop in a more classic way for snow here. Hope it isn’t a blip because that would be much less painful to track than a last minute coastal.

We can do well with a miller b hybrid where there is a wave coming at us from the TN valley but we almost always fail if its a pure NS miller b developing along the coast.  It takes an absolutely perfect phase/capture for that to work.  It's only happened a few times ever.  There was one example in Feb 1996 that worked out.  But we're talking a few times in 50 years that happened and worked...way way way more often we think it might happen and get a total rug pull like March 8, 2018 and Dec 2000.  

[psuhoffman]

PS the rug pull is not just an US thing...models are often too aggressive with these and any minor delay in development means the snow shifts northeast some...so when Philly is the back ends 24 hours out it ends up NYC, when its NYC it ends up Boston.  Remember 2015 when NYC was expecting 30" and it ended up hitting just east of them.  

[mitchnick]

22 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I am not saying you are wrong...you're not... tendencies within patterns are a real thing. You're right.  What I am saying is...it's not useful for predictive purposes because there are exceptions within those patters but most importantly you don't know when the pattern is going to flip.  

In 2005 we wouldn't have known the pattern was about to flip and go from a total torch to cold and snowy from Jan 20th on.  Same in 2007.  2009 was dry all winter then we got that big snowstorm early March.  2015 flipped in February.  2016 flipped in January.  2018 flipped in March.  2019 flipped from good to bad in late January.  2022 was great in January and then flipped bad in Feb.  

It's pretty rare for a pattern to set in for the whole winter start to finish...sometimes a bad one does and we get 2020 and 2023.  Sometimes a good one does and we get 1996/2003/2010/2014.  But way way way more often the season is a mix and we get some snowy periods and some not snowy periods and end up somewhere between those few great years and few total dreg ones.  And we don't know when the flips are about to happen until they do!  

All I'll say is, I  just hope this one works out for everyone to prove my opinion for this year wrong.

[bncho]

I guess we'll see what the RGEM would've been in the CMC shortly.

[baltosquid]

Man I do not envy forecasters dealing with a look like the GFS has at ~48 hours. Four vorts just whirling in and around the CONUS. Should give anyone discounting the threat (or hyping it) pause

[psuhoffman]

4 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

All I'll say is, I  just hope this one works out for everyone to prove my opinion for this year wrong.

It wouldn't prove you wrong...this storm could be that fluke outlier...or maybe the pattern is about to flip...but there was a very clear storm track pattern from Mid December up until now.  That isn't your imagination.  

[psuhoffman]

3 minutes ago, bncho said:

I guess we'll see what the RGEM would've been in the CMC shortly.

assuming they look the same at 84, they usually do, but past 60 sometimes they diverge a little 

[psuhoffman]

3 minutes ago, baltosquid said:

Man I do not envy forecasters dealing with a look like the GFS has at ~48 hours. Four vorts just whirling in and around the CONUS. Should give anyone discounting the threat (or hyping it) pause

luckly for them it's still far enough out they don't need to have a nailed down perfect forcast YET...there is time for this to resolve.  But if it ends up an inverted trough being ignited by a last second developing coastal lol...got help them...that's a nowcast situation and someone always ends up getting dumped in those but good luck predicting where...it's like trying to nail down the exact location of a thunderstorm ahead of time.  

[nw baltimore wx]

I know everyone is chasing weekend snow, but I'm not mad at the rain totals the gfs has leading up during the next few days.

[mitchnick]

Meh...AiGfs finally got the memo with the weak inverted trough. 

[stormtracker]

Well, GFS looks a good bit better than 6z so far...but still don't think it's going to do what we need

[bncho]

What will the GFS do?

[TSSN+]

1 minute ago, stormtracker said:

Well, GFS looks better than 6z so far...but still don't think it's going to do what we need

 

[stormtracker]

Light snow over the area at 99 where there was none at 6z

[Solution Man]

GFS looks good through 87

[Solution Man]

Just now, stormtracker said:

Light snow over the area at 99 where there was none at 6z

You’re ahead, bring it home

[paulythegun]

35 minutes ago, soadforecasterx said:

Now RGEM has my interest

*borat voice*

IT ABOUT TO MAKE LIQUID EXPLOSION!

[MickeyTim6533]

looks south, but im clueless so who knows

 

[baltosquid]

GFS definitely wants to start developing things more in the TN valley but not as aggressively as the RGEM. Seems like it won’t amp enough to deliver big time? But I would not mind shifting to this kind of look.

[TSSN+]

Just now, MickeyTim6533 said:

looks south, but im clueless so who knows

 

Well you shouldn’t post then cause your wrong