Dsnowx53 - 33andrain Jump to content

Dsnowx53

Meteorologist
  • Content Count

    2,105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Dsnowx53 last won the day on February 23

Dsnowx53 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

10,210 Excellent

2 Followers

About Dsnowx53

  • Rank
    NYMW - Doug Simonian

Personal Information

  • Location
    Rockville Centre, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yawn, more modeling errors. A ridiculous, laughable EPS comparison plot valid on 12/22, first with the run from 4 days ago, and now with the new run. So yea, still not gonna buy its silly SE ridge in the long range. We even already see it correcting towards showing more Aleutian low influence, which is an El Nino signal which will eventually override the MJO. EPS 4 days ago: EPS last night:
  2. The EPS pattern and its long range snap shots for the last week or two also implied a much longer torch than what will actually end up ultimately occurring. That's one of its biggest errors.
  3. There is a legitimately known bias for the EPS to dig troughs too much into the Rockies, which made it even more susceptible for it to error in that direction when considering it was smoothing out too many other forcing factors OUTSIDE of the MJO.
  4. Regardless of the volatility, it does seem inevitable that there's going to be some sort of PV streamer enhancing the confluence at the wrong time for this storm to climb the coast. A bit frustrating to see this on all of the guidance, but it does make me think that this storm is not the same "inevitable northward trender" as some others in the past. This confluence also seems to come independently of our storm's amplification, as it remains so cleanly split from the flow. That also makes me wary.
  5. And that .004% difference is more than made up by the fact that the new run is running 6 hours later, so you’re going to still get a more accurate forecast valid for the same time period as the prior 12z run, just simply because you are closer to the period of verification. In other words, an 18z run forecasting 144 hours out will be equal or perhaps slightly more accurate, all else being equal, than a 12z run forecasting 150 hours out.
  6. Definitely some nice improvements aloft that further prove how volatile the situation is and how much time we have left, but there was still too much northwest flow nearby at important frames for the storm to gain more latitude, verbatim.
  7. I see some similarities to December, 2009 on tonight's GFS.
  8. A big correction towards the ECMWF with its handing of the STJ and its associated timing of ejecting the energy. Just do that and the setup becomes very ripe.
  9. That's not how analyzing weather works
  10. I'm still really keeping an eye on the Pacific wave train, as I think it can somewhat "fight off" the well-discussed unfavorable period of forcing. A lot of the warmth is based on poleward west to east momentum asserting itself towards AK, and then once that whole configuration changes, that west to east momentum continues into the North Atlantic, also making the NAO more positive. But what if we had something to stop that, or slow it down? And then while slowing it down, buy more time for the forcing to ultimately shift back into a position where the vortex is near the Aleutians, rather than in AK? If this Aleutian ridge from the Pacific wave train breaks poleward, it would slow down the poleward west to east momentum, and delay the arrival of the AK vortex. Furthermore, by slowing down the west to east momentum there, you in turn slow down the west to east momentum downstream in the North Atlantic, and a -NAO pattern can linger longer. It's truly a feedback process in that regard. Then by the time the poleward west to east momentum would more so favor an AK vortex, we could have already bought enough time to where the forcing would shortly thereafter favor an Aleutian low and +PNA, rather than that same vortex being in AK. I think this is something that @Isotherm has alluded to. In other words, by delaying the AK vortex in the first place, you actually make it less likely to appear at all. Of course, if that wave train stays relatively zonal, then the AK vortex would arrive, the NAO would become more positive and we would probably torch for a bit, and it would be slightly longer warmup. But it's definitely something worth keeping an eye on. Regardless, there will be a period where the vortex is near AK, but in this scenario, it would only be near AK briefly before retrograding back westward.
  11. This will try to throw a wrench in the AK vortex pattern, and is something the EPS almost always smooths out. North Pacific wave trains! Build that ridge a bit more poleward into the Aleutians and the vortex won't make it to AK.
  12. The Pacific has really improved drastically on 12/3, corresponding to the 12/4 - 12/5 threat. It's so much more amplified, speaking to how the EPS is almost always too zonal and broad in the Pacific in the long range. It's just ends up helping a follow-up wave, rather than the original 12/3 wave. But it's basically within that same "first few days of December" window many had speculated on. Also notice that confluence sneaking into Southeast Canada. The longer term analoguing and rolling over the EPS is what signaled the 12/8 - 12/10 period, which continues to look excellent.
  13. It's funny how usually the data always trends back to the pattern prognostications from a while back, despite the bridge jumping. A Canadian-confluence-based Pacific disturbance snow threat in the first few days of the month, followed by a split flow -EPO threat about five days after that.
×