weatherwiz

25 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

NAM would prob still get eastern areas I think…but I’m not gonna spend more than about 30 seconds extrapolating the 84h NAM. 

That's still about 30 seconds too long

5 minutes ago, Cyclone-68 said:

One thing for sure…We haven’t had a winter this cold in several years. And I didn’t miss it 

I've actually changed my perspective on this and I think the massive snow cover has helped with that. When I was outside the other night, it brought back some good memories. A deep snow cover with frigid temperatures and a gusty wind...kind of makes you remember what winter should be. Not to mention just soaking up the landscape around you. It also reminds me of the Little House on the Prairie Book series...I can image myself in the Dakotas in the early days during blizzards and frigid temperatures. 

Also, this will make the warm weather that much more welcomed and enjoyable when we reach that time

I think I need somewhere around 75" to hit 100 so I am truly hoping this can be something that produces 18-24" and then we can get a few more 18-24" in February and maybe a 12-18 in March 

1 minute ago, dendrite said:

They put the track through the center of max snowfall. lol

maybe they used the wrong product to communicate what they meant

Or they just aren't very bright.

Let's go with the latter 

3 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

That’s not the actual low track…not sure why it’s depicted that way. The low actually starts off the coast of Savannah (after a weak vestige near FL panhandle 12 hours earlier) It’s not over interior NC and moving northeast. 

Using snow maps to indicate storm track or trends in anything is just lol

That double low feature continues yielding some big challenges. If that isn't a real thing this mostly comes west...but you never know with those features 

I'm kind of glad models are south and east at this point. Means we don't have to be bombarded with snow maps every 5 seconds and then every 3 seconds when you get the Kuchera showing 40" 

1 minute ago, dryslot said:

Violently agree with the bolded, Some time it giveth, But many times it taketh.

What really sucks about this is it is nearly impossible to gauge the validity of that aspect until real time (or at least not until within 6-12 hours). 

3 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

just using your chart here...

yeah, it's almost to the point of frustration that the models appear to be disconnecting the wave -space arguments in their physical result/processing. That ridge being over Idaho ...if anything that presupposes a position near WV with that tough axis.. which would probably parlay quite favorably.     That's a bizarrely stretched looking gunk L/W filled with distractions...

Also, the size of that high pressure system is massive, stretching from the upper-Midwest into southeast Canada southwest into the southern Plains...that as well argue for something farther north and west for track 

1 minute ago, dryslot said:

Your getting both of those pinwheeling to the NNE, Lot of these models have this dual low structure, Models struggling to where to place the low at the surface off the coast.

Yup...this is a model weakness in these airmasses. Forecast models don't have the necessary resolution to accurately handle this so you'll see the models just want to put the low where the warm air is. 

We certainly can't rule out a dual low structure either and there is a chance that this system has more in the way of convection associated with it which adds additional problems (as we know)

2 minutes ago, Go Kart Mozart said:

Dig more west, or not so deep?  I think we want closure closer to Norfolk rather than Myrtle Beach.  Maybe digging west accomplishes the same thing?

Yeah we definitely do not want this thing closing (at H5) too early. I think we'd even want it to be a bit farther north than Norfolk in a perfect world. But if we can dig that trough slightly more west and deeper that would certainly help tug this west a bit. However, thinking about this more closely, I question as to whether we would want this to dig more west and deep...if that happens we could run the risk of tracking this up right along the coast or even slightly inland. 

5 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

No doubt it’s a great looking set up…at least as it currently stands, but we all know these little things change as the said timeframe approaches, and that’s where the uncertainty lies.  Hopefully they change slightly in our favor. 

Agreed, my guess is we see changes in our favor. 

4 minutes ago, WinterWolf said:

That ridge out west(with its apex over the chimney of Idaho) in that depiction is in a perfect spot…we like to see that.  Hopefully it can get up here, and not slip OTS.  

There isn't much I really see, at least on the large-scale, that indicates this would go out to sea. Now, that doesn't mean this can't end up tracking far enough away that it only grazes the coast but I don't see a totally OTS solution here. I like the building -NAO too, particularly west based. I guess ultimately it would be best to get the 500 energy to dig slightly more west into Alabama but not a big issue at this stage

Keep in mind the struggle the models have with the shallow nature of Arctic airmasses. Where the GFS and even Euro are developing the sfc low off the Carolina coast...probably shift that 50-75 miles farther northwest along the with whole storm track. I think this one has a great chance of passing right over the benchmark. The only thing I don't want to see is this bomb to something into the 980's or lower. 

I still think this comes farther northwest. 

The 0z Euro was add to with the H5 vort. I don't think this vort is real...might be associated with convection and it seems the Euro then shifts the focus of evolution to this vort and results in south and east. 

5 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

24h QPF on ensembles....the total would actually be a bit more though since the timing isn't the same on all the members

 

That is a damn impressive signal this far out. I bet if this was inside 48 hours we would be seeing widespread 2"+ QPF...the inflow flux off the Atlantic in this would probably be even greater than this past weekend and the large-scale VVs would probably be much greater as we'd be developing closed mlvl circulations 

Just now, Typhoon Tip said:

I was agreeing with  you ... I rewrote that 

"I personally would, too"  poorly written.  ha

gotcha...I was very confused for a second haha. 

yeah I'll do without a sub 970 low please...hell I'll do without sub 980

2 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Mmm I personally wouldn't

I don't think it's handling the position(s) is/are very supported by the basics of wave geometric constraints in having the +PNA ridge longitude that far W.  

For this model ..?  I'd be lean on the fact that it has a system at all - it'll be the last guidance to come NW typically in N/stream phasing

I'm confused with this. 

Are you saying you think the GFS will eventually come more NW? If so, that's what I was referring to 

Getting a nice, steady light snow shower

1 minute ago, Prismshine Productions said:

Was with Fern

Sent from my SM-S166V using Tapatalk
 

Going to go with what my professor talked about with this past storm and how the GFS tends to be too far south and east with developing low pressures with Arctic boundaries around. GFS tends to develop them more towards the warmer side of the boundary (or a bit south and east of the boundary) when the reality is they tend to develop right along the Arctic boundary. Models can struggle with Arctic boundaries because the depth of the Arctic cold is on the shallower side

I would lean towards the 12z GFS being too far south and east 

3 minutes ago, codfishsnowman said:

What's our storm total from this? I'll go with what you have. Way too many trees and houses here plus blowing and drifting to get an accurate read and they still have not plowed.  Must be close to 18 with the old snow for total depth?

It was really difficult to get a final measurement because once the winds picked up the snow began blowing around. When I measured around 7:30 (had 11.5") and went back out before bed around 9:30, there was minimal additional accumulation and that's during the period when the winds started picking up. But judging by how it continued to snow through I went to bed I have to say the total was about 13-14". Depth is probably very close to 18".

The end of the driveway probably has 3-4 feet of snow. I almost don't even want it touched, it's like a Van Gogh painting; master artwork. You just want to stare at it, and admire it and think dirty thoughts 

1 minute ago, WinterWolf said:

But it was EFFICIENT for sure. We take that anytime. 

Oh absolutely. 

Just pointing it out more for the science behind the scenes aspect. So this isn't anything to knock down or play down the storm or intensities ordeal but it just goes to show how extremely difficult it is to get a storm where you have a consistent ratio. Now, at the end of the day, total wise it may not truly matter (except when talking about very high end stuff)...so it was a factor in why we didn't see widespread 20-30" type stuff but for those forecasting it's something that really needs to be given thought when making a forecast. 

We all won on this one