Tracking JAN 29th 2022 'The Phase'

and there's the expected adjustment of the GFS towards the ECMWF solution pic.twitter.com/QpNt5HKD6Z

— Jack Sillin (@JackSillin) January 27, 2022

Frank_Wx wrote:

heehaw453 wrote:GFS H5 has caved to mesos.

Yes, big time.

But I'm frustrated with what's happening at the surface.

Is it possibly so dynamic that it is not correct on surface? I mean how could it be?

I'm not worried at all about surface panels.  I would say the GFS tilt is better than NAM.  Heights are backed up better too.  That is not a coastal scraper look.

I highly doubt the GFS will come onto a further west and more amplified solution in the short term. The model just still struggles too much with rapidly intensifying east coast cyclogenesis due to a variety of issues with its model physics etc.
Its heights are still far too zonal when the LP develops off the southeast coast. Without a more meridional orientation ahead of the trough axis, you will not get favorable synoptic-scale forcing for a track close enough to the coast. Look at the RGEM and GFS surface at FHR 36...about the same, but the solution diverges very quickly thereafter....all because of the height orientation variations.
Bottom line, there is no way for that run to show a better solution than that verbatim. It is probably not right though.

jmanley32 wrote:

Frank_Wx wrote:

heehaw453 wrote:GFS H5 has caved to mesos.

Yes, big time.

But I'm frustrated with what's happening at the surface.

Is it possibly so dynamic that it is not correct on surface? I mean how could it be?

They must run these models on a 386 lol

The reality is GFS has not budged much in 3-4 days and the EURO has been shifting eastward since 00z last night.

Yes I know the RGEM/NAM look great but somethings gotta give here...

Frank_Wx wrote:

heehaw453 wrote:GFS H5 has caved to mesos.

Yes, big time.

But I'm frustrated with what's happening at the surface.

LOL it doubles its snow output totals. Perhaps the next run we get another double.. The trend is our friend..

I thought the surface low would be placed a little closer to the coast with that 500

Quietace wrote:I highly doubt the GFS will come onto a further west and more amplified solution in the short term. The model just still struggles too much with rapidly intensifying east coast cyclogenesis due to a variety of issues with its model physics etc.
Its heights are still far too zonal when the LP develops off the southeast coast. Without a more meridional orientation ahead of the trough axis, you will not get favorable synoptic-scale forcing for a track close enough to the coast. Look at the RGEM and GFS surface at FHR 36...about the same, but the solution diverges very quickly thereafter....all because of the height orientation variations.
Bottom line, there is no way for that run to show a better solution than that verbatim. It is probably not right though.

Welcome back Ryan!

heehaw453 wrote:I'm not worried at all about surface panels.  I would say the GFS tilt is better than NAM.  Heights are backed up better too.  That is not a coastal scraper look.

A potential problem I can't speak too much about but one I read about is the northern energy is too broad and there is not enough of it phasing into the backside of the trough. This dampens the heights across our area and is preventing H5 from closing off when we need it to. The eastern flank is vulnerable and seeing some PvA escape, which then causes our surface low to chase it (the convection). I think that is totally plausible...

Quietace wrote:I highly doubt the GFS will come onto a further west and more amplified solution in the short term. The model just still struggles too much with rapidly intensifying east coast cyclogenesis due to a variety of issues with its model physics etc.
Its heights are still far too zonal when the LP develops off the southeast coast. Without a more meridional orientation ahead of the trough axis, you will not get favorable synoptic-scale forcing for a track close enough to the coast. Look at the RGEM and GFS surface at FHR 36...about the same, but the solution diverges very quickly thereafter....all because of the height orientation variations.
Bottom line, there is no way for that run to show a better solution than that verbatim. It is probably not right though.

Welcome back just in time to catch me before I jumped the ledge.

Your explanation makes a lot of sense. I guess we'll just need to wait and see...

This is very frustrating, something has gotta give.

Frank_Wx wrote:

heehaw453 wrote:I'm not worried at all about surface panels.  I would say the GFS tilt is better than NAM.  Heights are backed up better too.  That is not a coastal scraper look.

A potential problem I can't speak too much about but one I read about is the northern energy is too broad and there is not enough of it phasing into the backside of the trough. This dampens the heights across our area and is preventing H5 from closing off when we need it to. The eastern flank is vulnerable and seeing some PVA escape, which then causes our surface low to chase it (the convection). I think that is totally plausible...

This is absolutely true. With the initial surface forming offshore in the Southeast, if you have too much zonal orientation, the initial PVA  and thus vertical motion (etc. etc.) will allow that initial low to intensify and move NNE/NE given the orientation.
This is why the earlier meridional orientation shown in the further west models is so key for heavy snowfall in the area. If the GFS solution is true, you may even get a double-barrel low structure to form, with the initial surface low to the NE of the second center developing because of an increase in pressure falls due to the rapidly adjusting midlevel trough orientation essentially adjusting the location of most favorable region for pressure falls. It is a messy, physically possible solution, but one that is not overly common for a number of reasons.

Frank_Wx wrote:The reality is GFS has not budged much in 3-4 days and the EURO has been shifting eastward since 00z last night.

Yes I know the RGEM/NAM look great but somethings gotta give here...

The GFS will eventually cave. We all know this.

I can't remember a system with this much uncertainty 48 hrs out. When did the last one happen?

12z CMC Crapola:


12z CMC 10:1

The 12Z global Canadian is close to its 00Z. Heights were slightly better backed up on 00Z, but fairly close.

If we can just get the energy to not escape as quickly we'll be in business.

Just for fun, here is the 12z HRRR valid 7am Saturday hahaha:

The fun continues...

aiannone wrote:Just for fun, here is the 12z HRRR valid 7am Saturday hahaha:

Wow, that's a complete miss, no?!

Irish wrote:

aiannone wrote:Just for fun, here is the 12z HRRR valid 7am Saturday hahaha:

Wow, that's a complete miss, no?!

Break out the sunscreen

Ok so would we say we have more of a west lean today than yesterday?

Irish wrote:

aiannone wrote:Just for fun, here is the 12z HRRR valid 7am Saturday hahaha:

Wow, that's a complete miss, no?!

Yup and not good as it is the HRRR, luckily it is in its bad range still.

UKIE went from showing 1" QPF last night (remember this model kept the storm offshore like the GFS for pretty much the entire time) to now no snow again at 12z. It pulled an 18z NAM like yesterday.

This. Is. Maddening.

I'll already give a preview now...

I suspect the GFS isn't done trending west. Part of that has to do with how it's handling the upstream flow, as well as parameterizing convection offshore. But just how far west remains the question - and I suspect we won't know for sure today.

— Tomer Burg (@burgwx) January 27, 2022

He is a wiz in model trend analysis and coding

Carvin wrote:Ok so would we say we have more of a west lean today than yesterday?

I would not say that, no. Not that there’s definite merit - but there’s plenty eastern leans today. So. Who knows.

it really just feels like the models are just toying with us at this point, building up hope to break it down