-
Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!
just like to see the cold have a little more staying power... it don't have to be 0 degrees for week. lol give me week of highs in the 30 s and let the southern stream continue... than we can talk than...
I have nothing to base this on. But I could see this winter going like last winter. We saw December storm followed by a clipper type on system in February which dumped 1-3 inches. I could see something like that happening. Of course I’m in upstate sc so I can’t speak for areas west and east and north
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You can probably understand why most on this board don’t trust anything out past 200hr. I’m speaking of the WAR. What if it never leaves? I’m sure there are some solutions on the ensembles where that ridge hangs out til the end of timeEps continues it’s cold look inside day ten now so it continues to move forward for all you negative people that think things are being delayed cause it’s not showing snow and below zero temps at your house
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
You continuously speak of storms being pushed back - there has not been one legitimate winter storm threat this entire winter outside of the December NC storm and the ice storm we just finished with. So I'm not sure what you're referring to - if you're talking about these fictitious D10+ winter storms you're just wasting your time on erroneous model noise. I'm not sure why anyone even looks at an operational run beyond 7 days out for any purpose. Just look at what happens to model performance even beyond D4!
I think one thing that may be tripping some people is when we talk about the pattern is supportive of a storm, and then one pops up for a run or two, that somehow that is a legitimate storm threat. Unless it's inside D7, that simply isn't true and I or anyone else who says otherwise has become lost in the hype. Right now we are trying to determine the big pieces of the pattern - the ridge out west, the big vortex over southeastern Canada, and the position, strength and timing of the STJ.
Last edited:
I disagree. This winter will be nothing like last winter, especially where February is concerned. Not sure about Upstate (although I am pretty sure) but I know we torched last winter in the N GA mountains in February. This February is shaping up to be a mirror opposite.
Again you have the assumption that a good pattern will produce and that’s not the case at all . We could rain till March and get no snow , not likely at all but it is possible
Again you are looking at the OP runs as gospel . it would benefit you greatly if you learned a little about 500mb so you could see why storms look to the way they look at the surface on op runs. It’s easy to look at an op run and see a storm cutting but it’s more important to understand how the model came up with that solution . Surface reflections on model runs are a direct result of 500mb. Maybe one of our more educated members can steer you in the right direction with some links
The storms are there in the same time frame we’ve been talking about for days now . One around the 20th and one around the 23rd-24th. They are coming along in A NEW PATTERN but that does not mean that will work out for the board or even parts of the board
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What happened last winter, does not have any correlation with this winter. Clippers are always possible every winter. There's always the possibility of clippers during cold northwest flows. Clipper systems can also phase with pieces of energy in the southern stream, which would mean a stronger storm system.
I think people have a misconception of the Ensemble mean. It is a smoothed combination of all the averages of the individual ensemble member runs. It can be skewed by very strong members and also by timing. So it is very hard to determine storm threats until you get closer and the members start agreeing. It can also mask things because one extreme member skews it. All this can make it appear things are moving back because a number of members may have been a few days too fast.
Good post. Brick and I had almost this exact same conversation last night. He thinks because an Op showed fantasy snow and then lost it, but the GEFS mean showed fantasy snow, the Op should start showing it again if you believe it's actually going to snow. What seems to be impossible to grasp is that just because a model or ensemble mean shows fantasy snow, doesn't mean it's actually a high or even medium probability event. If you take a very marginal pattern and run a model 50 times with different initial conditions, doesn't it seem logical that at least a few of the runs will show snow for your area? That will give you at least SOMETHING on the mean. That doesn't mean that snow is likely at all. And the op may never show it again because the pattern REALLY isn't all that conducive. None of that means you can't thread the needle, but that's beside the point.You continuously speak of storms being pushed back - there has not been one legitimate winter storm threat this entire winter outside of the December NC storm and the ice storm we just finished with. So I'm not sure what you're referring to - if you're talking about these fictitious D10+ winter storms you're just wasting your time on erroneous model noise. I'm not sure why anyone even looks at an operational run beyond 7 days out for any purpose. Just look at what happens to model performance even beyond D4!
I think one thing that may be tripping some people is when we talk about the pattern is supportive of a storm, and then one pops up for a run or two, that somehow that is a legitimate storm threat. Unless it's inside D7, that simply isn't true and I or anyone else who says otherwise has become lost in the hype. Right now we are trying to determine the big pieces of the pattern - the ridge out west, the big vortex over southeastern Canada, and the position, strength and timing of the STJ.
Here is the best way to describe ensembles
Local news is talking flurries here Sunday referencing the Euro from overnight. Not sure about it but we will see.
This is all the more true on the GEFS which has less than half the members of the EPS. 2 or 3 skewed members can really impact the mean if they are showing insane 20-30" totals and we've seen that countless times already this winter. Additionally, it's important to remember that the ensembles should also be used primarily for patterns -- especially at long lead times -- because they are lower-resolution than the operationals they are derived from. Using lower-resolution models to detect individual storm threats 10 days out - good luck with that too!
In summary, beyond D7 the discussion should be PATTERN PATTERN PATTERN focused and what COULD happen. If I go off the rails, someone can feel free to call me out, I'm sure at some point I've been a hypocrite of this advice and guilty of getting too caught up in details beyond a week myself before and should be called out for it if I have!
Time for the NAM. It was first to sniff out the stream seperation for Sunday storm. Lets see if it keeps it up LR. Want make a hill of beans to most or any of us, but interested to see if the model that gets bashed for its LR more than any other can win a beauty pageant for once lol.
And to add to the point about the pattern, often, the ensembles do a good job at longer leads depicting the general nature of how the pattern is likely to evolve. But they may shift important features such as, ridge placements, trough axes, location of blocking, etc. slightly enough that the great snowstorm pattern that they showed for your location two days ago doesn't look quite as great now, even though the general pattern they show turns out mostly correct. This is just the nature of the chaotic state of the atmosphere.
Congrats @Webberweather53 for making the Washington Post! Pretty cool.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weat...4CMbXVmQ&noredirect=on&utm_term=.2bf948e8661e
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weat...4CMbXVmQ&noredirect=on&utm_term=.2bf948e8661e
And for this reason I think it's futile to post 384 hr GEFS snow mean maps (no offense to those who post them and like to look at them), I just think it sets some up for disappointment
I agree, but we really need to be smarter than this. Maybe smarter isn't the right term. But maybe we need to learn that there's a difference between something that is fun to look at and something that is realistic. The two are usually not the same in the weather world.
This is what I have never completely understood about ensembles. How can you load different initial conditions into an ensemble model as initial atmospheric conditions, weather observations, measurements, etc. are already measured and defined at a current point in time? It's like taking a snapshot of the current weather conditions, varying or changing them to something different, and then loading them into the ensemble. If the ensembles start out with initial conditions that are varied or possibly incorrect, how the ensembles can be expected to create an accurate forecast further out in time. Are these variations that are loaded into the ensemble being done under the assumption that the current weather conditions may not have been accurately measured or sampled and therefore may actually be incorrect to begin with?