40/70 Benchmark

I don't agree with NAM being onto anything.  It can't keep continuity between runs wrt to jet streak tracking, changing from run to run across the last 24 hours of cycles... back and forth.  No folks - 

The REGM and GFS have the same trend. Yes folks-

it has yet to show the same solution for two consecutive runs

Where is that cirrus pic you had last week?

I'm nude.....jimmy swaying int he breeze...

The NAM is flattered you think that of it.

Yes.

I'd rather it not blow its load over sw CT again.

yeah I agree...probably not much of a concern down this way.  for much of CT I went 18-24'' to start (but mentioned 24-36'' is possible) but before going ahead and going with those much higher totals 1) want to try and get an idea of where the heaviest banding traverses and 2) how does the banding act over time?  Also before going much higher want to really get a handle on the exact track and positioning of the 700/850 lows and how they mature over time.  

Although if this run is given any credence, it should be less of a concern everywhere.

NAM amplifies later. Probably going to be a noose worthy run for NYC but still great for SNE.

Excellent.

Couple questions I have.  

 

Obviously this system should have quite the deformation band associated with it, however, (and this isn't a main concern but more curious I guess) is it possible the deformation band has trouble staying in tact and exceptionally strong for a long period of time?  The system which will stall for a time (or move very slowly) is going to become occluded and that will eventually cut off the warm/moist flow into the system and the 700mb low seems to become a bit more disorganized after a few hours in which models show a very tight closed off circulation...is it possible we see a very healthy looking deformation band just off to our west but sort of "fizzling" as it would move east?

That is more of a risk from far ne MA points ne...certainly not for you.

We're on 16 cores now. We'll see how it goes.

To keep him quiet about it? Probably a little, yes.

LOL I altered the quote....just messn'

The board has been struggling so I played with myself and decided we should have a new thread rather than contribute to letting the forum bog down with the 00z models.

 

Kevin...I stole and split a post from the other thread so that you could still have credit for it.

I'm not sure how that helped.

SREFS qpf:

 

2.0 495 in.

2.5 BOS to the mid cape.

 

 

epicosity.

What was the N extent on that, Jerry?

I wish coastal flooding people would weigh in because I have no idea comparatively to some other storm related stuff. I'm within sight of Boston Harbor from the parents... but that kind of stuff doesn't affect us. We are sheltered.

Yea, that is a gap in my met knowledge, too.

I think Steve is well versed in that.

actually thought part of that was serious for the first couple of lines.

I was legitimately horrified until he started giving board members shout outs.

oh yeah no doubt. And I think some of the events even ended up stronger and more dynamic than modeled.

It's systems of that ilk that the much maligned NAM handles with more panache than all of the globals, hence the globals were all significantly underdone with respect to that event and the NAM scored the coupe in signaling a HECS.

yeah there were tracks where jerry was talking about NAM clown maps giving BOS 12 to 16 or whatnot and i was thinking - no way...not with a canal cutter. but sure as sh*t the clown maps would verify. LOL.

Scott and I were discussing how you musn't just consider the track, but also the scale of the mid level features and many of last season's systems were compact and energetic.

I got like 16" from that April 1996 storm....we had gotten about 5-6" two days prior starting Easter Sunday evening.

That was the storm that set the all time record for snowfall here....before it, we still hadn't beaten 1992-1993.

I had 6" in the first one and 8" in the 2nd.....finished the season with a record 127.5".