The Psuhoffman Storm

[Swiscaster]

until you are doing more than simply regurgitating model output you should probably not try to stifle debate.

swisscaster has some slight point but not a huge one at this time.

Wow, my first acknowledgement of a point! I'll take it. But, I would wager it might not be so slight given the track record.

Also, I saw the post on most of the GFS ensemble members giving DC good snow. I can't see them on my bberry, but are the "good" members showing the good QPF as a result of getting in on coastal redevelopment snows? Because if so, we know how that has worked out this year...

[baroclinic_instability]

I agree 100 percent. I kinda hope people are not assuming I am convinced we are getting a HECS or anything. I still feel very much the same as when I first pointed this threat out. My original statement was that this was a better threat then the one still 3 days away that we were tracking at the time. That there was evidence we would finally get a trough to dig south far enough to have a favorable H5 track for this area. It would give us a shot at a significant snow where the last few did not. I still feel that way, we have a shot. I am not convinced of any solution as of right now, but I am convinced that this is a legitimate threat and those throwing it out simply based on "seasonal trend" are playing a dangerous game. Trends and patterns change and its only after they do that its easy to point out when it happened.

I was just referencing your post regarding the ensembles--not for your own good since I know you understand, but for the good of others just to mention that ensemble agreement doesn't necessarily mean much at this juncture either. In other words, don't book this event just simply because the ensemble agrees. It was a response to your comment regarding the GFS ensembles--not what I think you think will happen. I know you understand the variability at play here. And yes--seasonal trends mean nothing in this scenario. The atmosphere doesn't decide to take a dump on a region or simply skip over it because it has hurt feelings and wants to screw everyone. Every setup is completely different.

[marked8]

Sterling said this:

SO FAR THIS WINTER...THESE COASTAL

LOW SYSTEMS HAVE TENDED TO DEVELOP TOO LATE TO GIVE THE DC AREA A

SIGNIFICANT WINTER EVENT. HOWEVER...MEDIUM-RANGE MODEL RUNS ON

NUMEROUS OCCASIONS THIS WINTER HAD INDICATED POTENTIAL BIG STORMS

FOR THE REGION 4-6 DAYS OUT THAT DID NOT PAN OUT DUE TO A DELAY IN

THE PHASING PROCESS IN WEAKER SRN STREAM SYSTEMS. WHILE CONFIDENCE

/AND POPS/ OF THIS SYSTEM BRINGING SOME DEGREE OF IMPACT TO THE

MID-ATLANTIC STATES IS INCREASING...IT STILL REMAINS LOW WHEN

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE RELATIVELY POOR MODEL PERFORMANCE SO FAR

THIS WINTER AND CURRENT RUN TO RUN/MODEL TO MODEL DIFFERENCES.

[yoda]

Wow, my first acknowledgement of a point! I'll take it. But, I would wager it might not be so slight given the track record.

Also, I saw the post on most of the GFS ensemble members giving DC good snow. I can't see them on my bberry, but are the "good" members showing the good QPF as a result of getting in on coastal redevelopment snows? Because if so, we know how that has worked out this year...

NO.... the storm comes up the coast from the SE (NC/SC)after ALREADY developing down there... NOT up here

[nj2va]

im just a jerk, lol.

i like to debate.. sometimes i'll take the opposite side just to get it going. i work at a think tank...

It all makes sense now!

[Yeoman]

The atmosphere doesn't decide to take a dump on a region or simply skip over it because it has hurt feelings and wants to screw everyone. .

That's the kind of idiotic reasoning we deal with around here from the weenies.

[psuhoffman]

I was just referencing your post regarding the ensembles--not for your own good since I know you understand, but for the good of others just to mention that ensemble agreement doesn't necessarily mean much at this juncture either. In other words, don't book this event just simply because the ensemble agrees. It was a response to your comment regarding the GFS ensembles--not what I think you think will happen. I know you understand the variability at play here. And yes--seasonal trends mean nothing in this scenario. The atmosphere doesn't decide to take a dump on a region or simply skip over it because it has hurt feelings and wants to screw everyone. Every setup is completely different.

Just like your comment was mostly in general, so was mine. Just think because my name is stamped on this, some assume I am forecasting a specific solution. Its way too early. Your posts are always excellent and I find your knowledge and analysis invaluable. We are all glad you pop into our thread from time to time.

[Swiscaster]

He does have a point, but it gets ridiculous after a while. We get it, he wants a screwjob. This has a better chance then we have seen this winter to give us snow and potentially a good amount.

Yoda, not what I want screwjob is. More than family/sports/beer snow do I love.

Just pessimistic given the pattern.

[mitchnick]

I was just referencing your post regarding the ensembles--not for your own good since I know you understand, but for the good of others just to mention that ensemble agreement doesn't necessarily mean much at this juncture either. In other words, don't book this event just simply because the ensemble agrees. It was a response to your comment regarding the GFS ensembles--not what I think you think will happen. I know you understand the variability at play here. And yes--seasonal trends mean nothing here. The atmosphere doesn't decide to take a dump on a region or simply skip over it because it has hurt feelings and wants to screw everyone. Every setup is completely different.

well, I respectfully disagree

I'm not saying we (DCA/BWI) are getting shiat on as a result of some conscious decision

rather, the way things get lined up based on larger scale features (Enso, SST away from equatorial waters, NAO, and other large scale induces) will and do play a role and sometimes it means certain areas (out of pure chance/luck) will have anomalies that are otherwise inexplicable

I believe that explains the obvious snow hole in the NVA up through S PA snow hole this winter

[baroclinic_instability]

Just like your comment was mostly in general, so was mine. Just think because my name is stamped on this, some assume I am forecasting a specific solution. Its way too early. Your posts are always excellent and I find your knowledge and analysis invaluable. We are all glad you pop into our thread from time to time.

Yeah don't worry. I had to go as far as starting my own thread in OT to explain where I am coming from. "Baroclinic_Instability Is Pessimistic".

[Amped]

42 hrs to go until the last piece of the shortwave gets onshore.

00z Monday runs will have it.

Until then, distract yourself, because every run is a waste of time.

[psuhoffman]

Well on my way to alpine ski shop in Sterling to pick up some powder ski's, hopefully I will get to use them next week somewhere local. Hopefully the 0z suite keeps our hope alive.

[Swiscaster]

NO.... the storm comes up the coast from the SE (NC/SC)after ALREADY developing down there... NOT up here

And I would wager that the redevelopment won't be that far south (per the seasonal trend).

[baroclinic_instability]

well, I respectfully disagree

I'm not saying we (DCA/BWI) are getting shiat on as a result of some conscious decision

rather, the way things get lined up based on larger scale features (Enso, SST away from equatorial waters, NAO, and other large scale induces) will and do play a role and sometimes it means certain areas (out of pure chance/luck) will have anomalies that are otherwise inexplicable

I believe that explains the obvious snow hole in the NVA up through S PA snow hole this winter

I think you are misinterpreting my comment. Large scale global patterns are huge in determining long-range weather patterns--but we are now in the dynamic portion of this forecast. I don't care about La Nina, MJO's, NAO's, AO's, or any other slowly changing oscillation/periodic pattern--it is a new forecast threat here and "dynamics" come into play here.

[nj2va]

Sterling said this:

[/b]

Good write-up. Agree with their call 4-5 days out, especially with what we've seen here this winter.

[Amped]

I think you are misinterpreting my comment. Large scale global patterns are huge in determining long-range weather patterns--but we are now in the dynamic portion of this forecast. I don't care about La Nina, MJO's, NAO's, AO's, or any other slowly changing oscillation/periodic pattern--it is a new forecast threat here and "dynamics" come into play here.

[baroclinic_instability]

I think you are misinterpreting my comment. Large scale global patterns are huge in determining long-range weather patterns--but we are now in the dynamic portion of this forecast. I don't care about La Nina, MJO's, NAO's, AO's, or any other slowly changing oscillation/periodic pattern--it is a new forecast threat here and "dynamics" come into play here.

Time scales do matter--and it is similar to scale analysis in some ways. For instance, mesoscale and smaller weather patterns do not follow the same laws as synoptic patterns because they are typically non-hydrostatic and are not influenced by the Coriolis force. They have time evolutions too small to be bothered by those. Same here--the lang range teleconnection patterns are quite honestly no longer in play here (day 3-4).

[mitchnick]

I think you are misinterpreting my comment. Large scale global patterns are huge in determining long-range weather patterns--but we are now in the dynamic portion of this forecast. I don't care about La Nina, MJO's, NAO's, AO's, or any other slowly changing oscillation/periodic pattern--it is a new forecast threat here and "dynamics" come into play here.

correct, and they are, imho, controlled by the larger scale seasonal pattern that transcend what the models want to predict days in advance

it is why 08/09 had 4-5 day threats that always ended up looking the same for our area

it is why 09/10 had its 4-5 day threats that ended up the same for our area

iow, we are stuck with a pattern that is unique to each winter and the efforts of the computer models showing solutions in any meaningful way different from that pattern are nothing more than fodder for the blind (snow weenies hoping for the best case scenario, of which I am one)

so in that sense, the dynamics of "this" storm don't really matter in the end

[Ian]

Wow, my first acknowledgement of a point! I'll take it. But, I would wager it might not be so slight given the track record.

Also, I saw the post on most of the GFS ensemble members giving DC good snow. I can't see them on my bberry, but are the "good" members showing the good QPF as a result of getting in on coastal redevelopment snows? Because if so, we know how that has worked out this year...

people like yoda barely understand real meteorology it seems, so he should cut folks slack. if you took the gfs verbatim there is definitely a risk of the 'seasonal trend' appearing in the coming days as it does not develop that far south and 500 is good for now but would have plenty of time to shift north more. the fact that the vorts are slated to initially pass well south (the question on if/where it goes negative is an issue still to be resolved in that case) on most other guidance plus better ridging to the west compared to other storms this yr would tend to argue that there is a better chance we get in on whatever happens be it a blizzard or a few inches then a deluge. but we have also seen plenty of vorts get sheared apart and sent east etc.. so that has to be some concern even if a negligible one to some.

[yoda]

people like yoda barely understand real meteorology it seems, so he should cut folks slack. if you took the gfs verbatim there is definitely a risk of the 'seasonal trend' appearing in the coming days as it does not develop that far south and 500 is good for now but would have plenty of time to shift north more. the fact that the vorts are slated to initially pass well south (the question on if/where it goes negative is an issue still to be resolved in that case) on most other guidance plus better ridging to the west compared to other storms this yr would tend to argue that there is a better chance we get in on whatever happens be it a blizzard or a few inches then a deluge. but we have also seen plenty of vorts get sheared apart and sent east etc.. so that has to be some concern even if a negligible one to some.

I understand it for the most part. There is no model that does what he says is going to happen ATTM. Is there concern? Some, sure. But there's no need to constantly say it over and over and over.

[baroclinic_instability]

correct, and they are, imho, controlled by the larger scale seasonal pattern that transcend what the models want to predict days in advance

it is why 08/09 had 4-5 day threats that always ended up looking the same for our area

it is why 09/10 had its 4-5 day threats that ended up the same for our area

iow, we are stuck with a pattern that is unique to each winter and the efforts of the computer models showing solutions in any meaningful way different from that pattern are nothing more than fodder for the blind (snow weenies hoping for the best case scenario, of which I am one)

so in that sense, the dynamics of "this" storm don't really matter in the end

Huh? So you think we should forecast based on the past events alone? Even using that interpretation, this pattern is completely different than the past forecasts "busts" for the DC/BA area and it features no anomalous blocking and a very amplified PNA ridge. Persistence alone only gets you so far--and if persistence worked so darn well--we would never need numerical models because nothing would ever change! If this is exactly how we forecasted today--there would be some seriously high impact to society forecast busts with severe implications.

[kurtstack]

people like yoda barely understand real meteorology it seems, so he should cut folks slack. if you took the gfs verbatim there is definitely a risk of the 'seasonal trend' appearing in the coming days as it does not develop that far south and 500 is good for now but would have plenty of time to shift north more. the fact that the vorts are slated to initially pass well south (the question on if/where it goes negative is an issue still to be resolved in that case) on most other guidance plus better ridging to the west compared to other storms this yr would tend to argue that there is a better chance we get in on whatever happens be it a blizzard or a few inches then a deluge. but we have also seen plenty of vorts get sheared apart and sent east etc.. so that has to be some concern even if a negligible one to some.

I believe the shearing of the vorts was related to the constant blocking we've been seeing all winter, and which is noticeably absent for this event.

[Ian]

I understand it for the most part. There is no model that does what he says is going to happen ATTM. Is there concern? Some, sure. But there's no need to constantly say it over and over and over.

the gfs isnt that far from it being a problem.. the gfs is an outlier right now so it's probably not right. but none of the rest is that much of a given. we had plenty of southern moisture just recently for a storm that totally missed us and we also had some during dec 26. there is much more good here than in those overall, but you seem very certain this will be a well developed gulf low or such when the northern stream dominance seems to say you'll still see most of your good development once its off the east coast etc. last yr we had quite well developed lows that started off the tx coast and pretty much continued unabated up the coast. this yr we have really seen more hybrid activity that wants to act like a miller b. all signs are this should buck some trends at least. how many is still unknown. trends do only take you so far. it stopped snowing feb 10 and never came back.

[I-83 BLIZZARD]

No matter what happens this has been the most active snow threat tracking winter I recall. That's what makes it even more painful is that for all the threats there is almost nothing to show for it. I try and put things in perspective though, last January sucked here snow wise, and we only really had 2 great snow weeks, 12/19 and 2/5/-2/10. All it takes is a small window to make the entire winter around here. Right now this seems to be the most promising period for us.

[PhineasC]

the gfs isnt that far from it being a problem.. the gfs is an outlier right now so it's probably not right. but none of the rest is that much of a given. we had plenty of southern moisture just recently for a storm that totally missed us and we also had some during dec 26. there is much more good here than in those overall, but you seem very certain this will be a well developed gulf low or such when the northern stream dominance seems to say you'll still see most of your good development once its off the east coast etc. last yr we had quite well developed lows that started off the tx coast and pretty much continued unabated up the coast. this yr we have not really seen more hybrid activity that wants to act like a miller b. all signs are this should buck some trends at least. how many is still unknown. trends do only take you so far. it stopped snowing feb 10 and never came back.

I think you just shattered Yoder's entire world view.

[Ian]

I believe the shearing of the vorts was related to the constant blocking we've been seeing all winter, and which is noticeably absent for this event.

could be, no knowledge of that tho. the northern jet has also been chock full of vorts and pretty fast without much ridging which probably helped.

[Midlo Snow Maker]

No matter what happens this has been the most active snow threat tracking winter I recall. That's what makes it even more painful is that for all the threats there is almost nothing to show for it. I try and put things in perspective though, last January sucked here snow wise, and we only really had 2 great snow weeks, 12/19 and 2/5/-2/10. All it takes is a small window to make the entire winter around here. Right now this seems to be the most promising period for us.

GOOD POST

[WxUSAF]

Did anyone notice that the 18z GFS is still advertising highs in the teens for the 'burbs and maybe about 20F in the cities on Monday?

[Ian]

Did anyone notice that the 18z GFS is still advertising highs in the teens for the 'burbs and maybe about 20F in the cities on Monday?

mos is quite a bit warmer than that

[Swiscaster]

people like yoda barely understand real meteorology it seems, so he should cut folks slack. if you took the gfs verbatim there is definitely a risk of the 'seasonal trend' appearing in the coming days as it does not develop that far south and 500 is good for now but would have plenty of time to shift north more. the fact that the vorts are slated to initially pass well south (the question on if/where it goes negative is an issue still to be resolved in that case) on most other guidance plus better ridging to the west compared to other storms this yr would tend to argue that there is a better chance we get in on whatever happens be it a blizzard or a few inches then a deluge. but we have also seen plenty of vorts get sheared apart and sent east etc.. so that has to be some concern even if a negligible one to some.

I must say that I think we have a better chance of higher precip totals from this just because most models are giving us more in many different scenarios. Can't say I'm not still very wary of the typical Miller B miss though.