anc.py
Member
Yikes. Just yikes.
-
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!
Jan. 17-18, 2026 SE Winter Weather Threat
- Thread starter RBR71
- Start date
Yikes. Just yikes.
That's pathetic for a under 3+ day ensemble mean.
I'm tempted to call it, but who knows, if an ensemble mean this close in can change so quickly, perhaps, just maybe, it goes the other way over the next few cycles.
anc.py
Member
It could legitimately be that, at this range, it may be useless too. Hopefully it goes that way, but I doubt that.
CNCsnwfan1210
Member
Mahomeless
Member
Posting the globals, and giving them credence, at 84 hours is, well, diabolical. This is CLASSIC global mischief, losing a storm in mid-range, only to play catchup to the short range models in a day or so. Love it!
iwantsouthernsnow123
Member
A little bit in a deadzone right now and this happens quite often. Shorter range slightly too far to be accurate but globals too close to be accurate.
Nah I don’t think this is one of those times lol
What model would you like to look at at 84 hours? The NAM? The RGEM? The HRRR?
PC skies it is
LongRanger
Member
I would lean heavily on short range models at this range, If they are picking up on something they would likely be right at this range than anything the Globals are showing
Cad Wedge NC
Member
Sorry, but we are not in their wheelhouse at this range. Usually, 36-48 hours out is around the time you would put more credence in the short-range models. That's just been my experience.
^^^^I'm still focusing on the NAM. I'll ride it to the end (which is getting close). It's done very well in the past storms with "iffy" thermals and precip.
LongRanger
Member
But we're also out of the wheelhouse at this range for Globals, I'm putting my chips on the short range even at 72-84
Bigedd09
Member
I still don’t believe temps would be an issue in western piedmont and foothills of NC. Lack of precip is the real issue . Always has been imo
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hate to break it to y'all, but statistically, models smoothly improve inverse with lead-time. The GFS (or any other model) doesn't suddenly become poor at a shorter lead-time.
tractor girl
Member
To the newbs, never trust the surface precip on the NAM. It's sexy but will disappoint you (almost) every time
That’s the thing. The model runs that were winners on the western flank had some wave separation between the Saturday system running thru TN and our trailing wave diving down…and they really dug that trailing wave back to the southwest. But the separation allowed time for cold air to filter east and more room for the wave to breath and sharpen for the precip
The AI’s have kept the 2 waves more together as one unit all along - so it’s almost like a frontal passage - the precip is lighter and quicker when the cold air hasn’t had a chance to work in
accu35
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2017
- Messages
- 8,927
- Reaction score
- 11,408
I think it’s under doing the precip all together
Not the mama
Member
So are we all cooked at this point?
I'd trust the globals over the 84 hr NAM.
Also, the global models will be more accurate at go-time than they are days before the event. Maybe not as good as the mesoscale models (although that's debatable, the HRRR is a disaster sometimes in my perception), but there seems to be a mistaken perception on here sometimes that the globals get worse closer to the event when in reality they'll never be more accurate right before an event.
And to think, I wasted money on black poster board. Catching a neutrino is easier than a snow flurry here of late.
trackersacker
Member
Yes. This is why I got 4” of snow back in January 2022 when the GFS had 20.
The point is that, on average, the GFS is going to be more accurate with a 24-hour lead time from an event compared to a 48-hour lead time, which is going to be more accurate than a 72-hour lead time, etc. The globals don't become "less accurate" in the run-up to an event, which is the impression I sometimes get from this forum. In any given specific situation, your mileage may vary.
bncho
Member
GFS is more erratic than a drunk driver, RGEM is so warm that DC receives rain, Euro has been super SE for the last 24 model runs, and the AI models have been super consistent. And then there are a bunch of random models that should NOT be taken into account like the RRFS and the NAM at 84 hours. lol these models suck
mydoortotheworld
Member
I don’t remember exactly but 12/8/17 and 2/8/2020 - GFS didn’t do particularly well <84 hours, it was something the NAM did better on? Idk could be forgetting things at this point
AIFS QPF a tick SE, not a huge amount. Bigger issues than the QPF with the overall look with the AIs though
The NAM isn't a bad model, it's called SHORT RANGE for a reason.
Going to get a QPF bump on the 18z Euro OP though
Tsappfrog20
Member
When you have availability will you share pictures of it I don’t have access thanks
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wow. Nothing even shows up.
Euro should be a bit better. Better tilt. 
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
Lol
It's a small adjustment and not much to look at, produces some spotty very light snow in ENC
iGRXY
Member
The NAM surface is typically dry so this doesn’t apply
18z AIFS and ECMWF-IFS
Any NW trend that existed in models earlier today has completely stopped and even reversed in much of the guidance.