Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    18,675
    Total Members
    14,841
    Most Online
    robor
    Newest Member
    robor
    Joined

Late February/Early March 2026 Mid-Long Range


WxUSAF
 Share

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Not sure this is the right thread but...  something to keep in mind for future miller b storms, almost every single one going back to the 80s, tends to trend west up until about 24-36 hours out, and then shifts east and pulls the rug out at the last minute to some extent.  Some didn't do it to us...like Jan 2015 which did that rug pull to NYC, or Feb 89 that rug pulled me in NJ, but they all do it.  Some recent examples for our area are Dec 2000, Boxing day, March 8, 2018, Feb 1 2021, and this week.  Where around 24-48 hours out things were trending west and we got excited and then at the very end reality set in and the storm ended up just a little northeast.  That is the MO.  That happens ALWAYS every single time.  Expect it.  It just is how the models are with these miller b storms.  I don't know why.  I have just observed they tend to be under amplified and too far east around days 4-7 then over correct and get us excited around day 2-3 and then shift back at the last minute and everything shifts 50-75 miles east the final 24 hours.  

That doesn't mean we can't EVERY get a lot of snow from a miller B, but it's super rare and we want it amplifying well west not relying on getting the very back edge of the developing CCB zone because that will almost always end up further east than guidance shows 2-3 days out.  

I have seen some debate if this was a Miller A or B or hybrid or what (which is not unusual).  I'm beginning to wonder if how useful those categories really are, but I was under the impression that one of the hallmarks of a B was a Ohio Valley low that transfers, and I didn't think that there was one of those in this case.  In your perception, what made this storm more "B-ish"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, wxman said:

You would think that this is the exact type of thing the the AI models would address?  At least where I am the euro AI never really loved the blizzard and while I'm happy with my 16.3" it was not the 2 feet shown on many non-AI models.  In some respects outside the immediate coast up through NYC-BOS the euro AI was closer to reality. 

I had a similar thought about cold chasing moisture, especially east of the Apps and double especially east of the taller Apps down in my neck of the woods.  Every model run in history overestimates how fast the cold gets over the mountains and frequently hallucinates phantom snow as a result.  Since the AIs are trained on historical data one would think that this bias should go poof on an AI model.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cbmclean said:

I had a similar thought about cold chasing moisture, especially east of the Apps and double especially east of the taller Apps down in my neck of the woods.  Every model run in history overestimates how fast the cold gets over the mountains and frequently hallucinates phantom snow as a result.  Since the AIs are trained on historical data one would think that this bias should go poof on an AI model.

I guess it depends on the AI training.  In your case the AI models would need to ingest ground truth, which they may or may not.  In PSU's example the AI model should certainly know how the atmospheric features were modeled versus how they evolved in real time.  I don't really know, though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

×
×
  • Create New...