Jump to content

NittanyWx

Meteorologist
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    713

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by NittanyWx

  1. NittanyWx
    With surface temps in the mid 30's, you'd take the under. Clown maps are exciting to look at, but you do still need to check those temperature panels and soundings...
  2. NittanyWx
    Agree here, very useful tool at the d6-10 range.
  3. NittanyWx
    Feeling that this January so far is setting up as expected. You've got a chance on the 7th, but need a few things to go right to make it happen. Don't like the 10th at all. Do like MLK period/week.
  4. NittanyWx
    Im warming up to this MLK period and immediately after for snow chances, which is nothing new in my view. Hate the 10th, still think this is doable Jan 7 but still need a few things to go right out west for it to happen and need to avoid 700mb warm intrusion if it ends up a coastal. I feel risk skewed higher for suppression than cut today with the 7th.
  5. NittanyWx
    Or putting it in overly simplistic terms: A lot more pieces need to change for the 10th to work out for snow lovers than the 7th-8th.
  6. NittanyWx
    I use the ICON inside 120 hours. It's a viable, usable model.
  7. NittanyWx
    I dont think a soaking rainstorm in the region is off the table completely either, but I think it's little less likely than suppression today. You've got a path to pretty much every solution at this stage.
  8. NittanyWx
    12z GFS is a good example of the suppression risk that occurs with heights crashing out west. Still a very delicate act here to make it work.
  9. NittanyWx
    It's a delicate balancing act of the 3 factors you're reinforcing here in addition to a low track omplicated and influenced by both upstream and downstream factors. And that's before we even get to the resolving of Canadian HP strength at hr 168. Lot more moving pieces here than just surface high and track of the low. Thought it was kinda ridiculous to simplify it down to such. Anyway, happy new year!
  10. NittanyWx
    You are going out of your way to take shots at people. Discuss the meteorology. It is a complex setup and should be treated as such.
  11. NittanyWx
    Because it isn't simplistic. Which is the whole damn point. And I've actually been someone who's flagged this period well over a week now as potentially having the necessary ingredients for snow and that it 'could work'. But I hate this shit of policing what weather factors are fair game to discuss or not. If that HP is 1024 instead of 1030, the antecedent airmass matters. No one is saying it 'can't snow' because of the antecedent airmass. But it's absolutely fair game to discuss.
  12. NittanyWx
    Just unnecessary level of emotion in discussing various factors and minutae that impact a storm. It's fair game to discuss it.
  13. NittanyWx
    Oh really now? Are you sure the high is gonna be 1030 at d7? Are you sure the low is gonna be 985? Are you sure the synoptic conditions aren't going to cause the storm to be suppressed? What about over amp? Because these are factors I'm considering and you should be too if you could forecast worth a damn.
  14. NittanyWx
    So its entirely a function of the low levels...nothing to do with 700mb low track, phasing of multiple jet streams, timing of a deepening low into an antecedent marginal airmass? The high helps, but this is far more detailed than just 'track'.
  15. NittanyWx
    It's a delicate balancing act.
  16. NittanyWx
    The antecedent airmass being marginal is a legitimate aspect of forecasting this storm. Not sure I understand this comment. Modeling is fair game inside d7 as are the slight synoptic differences. Some of y'all get so emotional when there's a storm around and I don't understand why.
  17. NittanyWx
    I would much prefer an overrunning scenario vs a coastal for more frozen precipitation locally in this scenario. That said, this can work under the right sense of synoptic circumstances. Looking to amp just enough via a combination of a deepening low (but not too deep) and just enough ridging out west to not overwhelm a marginal Canadian HP and not be suppressed. It's doable, but it still requires a few things to go right. The 10th in my view is unlikely to deliver frozen precipitation for most. I believe the EC Ens this afternoon will likely end up too cold with that.
  18. NittanyWx
    We're definitely not in a Nina-like background state
  19. NittanyWx
    As discussed, the 6th-7th window is the one opportunity I dont totally dismiss regarding snow chances. Still need a few things to go right to make it happen, but some HP in east Can is helpful. You need to amp this some, but a deep bombing coastal low probably overwhelms marginal HP help for most in the area.
  20. NittanyWx
    In places where there are statistically significant El Nino correlations? Yes, absolutely.
  21. NittanyWx
    Yes.
  22. NittanyWx
    As an aside, the insistence on seasonal forecasting is kind of strange because increasingly the value I see being added is in days 10-30. I don't think it's a crapshoot anymore regarding temperature regimes. You can add value there and increasingly its the window the energy and retail clients are seeking value added by meteorologists in. I get asked more about week 3-4 than week 2 at this stage in my career.
  23. NittanyWx
    Must be mild because the NYC forum is back to fighting each other. For the record, bluewave has been solid. Not perfect, but no one is. He's done a better job recognizing source region issues than some red taggers. Can we move on now?
  24. NittanyWx
    The hill in this case is a 500 foot cliff
  25. NittanyWx
    I think the EC Weeklies are again showing a +EPO reward of NE. Given all I've discussed about this lately, I don't think it's something you can ignore outright in favor of seasonality and hard transition to +PNA. There's a transitional window you're gonna need to deal with and there is a risk of more Pac air. Hence my comment about last 10 days of Jan.
×
×
  • Create New...