Why next week’s storm will not affect our region
As Autumn has arrived, the jet stream tends to get a bit stronger and sag to the south, helping make nor’easters more likely. Some computer model guidance had been hinting at a strong coastal storm approaching the area early next week, which would bring strong winds, heavy rain, and coastal flooding. However, the pattern does not support such an occurrence.
Looking at last night’s European model ensembles at the 500mb level, there do appear to be some features that support the potential for a strong nor’easter to head towards our area. Initially, there is a kink in the heights at 500mb just offshore of the Eastern Seaboard, which indicates our storm system. With strong storms like Sandy, we had a blocking ridge near and to the north of the storm, forcing it to stay to offshore of the southeast coast, instead of shooting out to sea. We also had a trough diving into the Central Plains, heading eastward, eventually capturing the storm and bringing it to the west. At the basic level, those two features certainly exist, which raise an eyebrow.

Last night’s European model ensembles, valid for 8 a.m. Saturday morning. Image is courtesy of the WSI model lab.
However, taking a deeper look at things, it is not prudent to say that a storm will trek towards us. For one thing, although there is a strong ridge in the east, extending up through SE Canada and New Foundland, it is merely a function of being downstream of the trough, and is not a block. Blocking typically occurs in higher latitudes — such as Greenland — and the height contours are typically closed. The true blocks are very slow to move and act to buckle the weather pattern, rather than being within the “flow” of the pattern. Since the ridge is merely downstream of the trough — it is within the “flow” of the pattern, and there is nothing to keep this ridge in place. It is thus a transient feature, and will eventually scoot out to sea and weaken. In fact, looking the higher latitudes, the heights are actually very low up there; more evidence that there is no true blocking.

