|12z GFS total snowfall|
As you all know, the +PNA and Strong Phase 6 MJO will be contributing to the eventual track and effects of this storm system. Using those major indices, I think this 12z GFS is garbage. Take a look at the ensembles.
|12z GFS ENS Hour 120|
|12z GFS ENS Hour 132|
|12z GFS ENS Hour 144|
The ECMWF takes a track that in my eyes looks like it takes a more predominantly +PNA track with maybe a slight MJO influence. Here's the ECMWF vs. the ECMWF Ensembles.
|12z ECMWF Hour 120|
|12z ECMWF ENS Hour 120|
|HPC Day 4 Forecast|
|HPC Day 5 Forecast|
**A side note: Tonight's 0z model runs and tomorrow's 12z model runs will be ones to watch, as they will contain sampling (observation) data from inside the storm-to-be. You can tell the NOAA is watching this storm, because 12z observation data injected from a storm-to-be winter flight is rare.
By the way, the data is gathered from special airplane flights that drop items that record observations in the atmosphere. these observations are injected into the models and thus help solidify their solutions for those runs in that suite (0z or 12z).
Right now, I do think that the ECMWF/ECMWF ENS are onto something, as is the GFS ENS. I believe that the GFS ENS are banking on a stronger MJO than the ECMWF ENS are, which can be settled as the date for the storm approaches. I am going to go with a ECMWF ENS/GFS ENS blend, as again- group consensus' are better for me than models themselves.
Something I have discovered is that the ECMWF indeed keeps the MJO in Phases 6-7 weaker than the NCEP for the storm timeframe. That said, I think that the stickler for the models will be the MJO strength, as both ensemble groups from the ECMWF/GFS keep the PNA at relatively similar strengths.
I am thinking that the storm will affect the Ohio Valley and take the ECMWF Ensemble direction, where it may eventually hit the Northeast. The NAO will be an interesting piece to watch, as the models are not particularly certain on its fate during the storm.
Any questions may be asked below.