Jump to content

DDweatherman

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,274

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by DDweatherman

  1. DDweatherman
    The 12z RGEM is just not a fan of this storm, but it literally bounces back and forth so much
  2. DDweatherman
    0z was sharper than 12z at the base of the trof post phase, those 2 images show it pretty clearly
  3. DDweatherman
    Nah, it was a decent bit sharper if we're being honest. Shows clearly here
  4. DDweatherman
    trof axis is pretty similar, just a bit more tail from a slightly less clean phase. The axis of the northern energies dropping in isn't due N/S like 0z, but close
  5. DDweatherman
    Doesn't look all that far off from 0z at 54 if we're being honest. Better than 6z no doubt, but also not much worse than 0z
  6. DDweatherman
    TPV up NE is better aligned allowing some height rises over us... stressing how important that can be downstream
  7. DDweatherman
    Agreed, should be a bit better downstream provided the phase stays clean.
  8. DDweatherman
    Not really looking too closely at models this morning, but let's see if the NAM tries to suck us back in.
  9. DDweatherman
    Morning Mappy, the damn beer bet doesn't look good
  10. DDweatherman
    Night y'all, that wasn't what we needed. Gonna need the NAM/Euro overamped team in these situations to get one right.
  11. DDweatherman
    Now through 48 its a step back vs 18z, the S/S is west and N/S is east a bit on both
  12. DDweatherman
    TPV is pressing down a bit, thats all I'm seeing thus far.
  13. DDweatherman
    The important GFS frames are on the doorstep, not a step back from 18z yet which is a good start
  14. DDweatherman
    Truthfully the icon had better parts at h5, but its not that important
  15. DDweatherman
    RGEM & ICON round out the JV suite, GFS is the important one. Everyone take a coffee break for 20 mins...
  16. DDweatherman
    Don't disagree with you there...swings very wildly
  17. DDweatherman
    Okay... good thing its the NAM or I'd be arguing to the death. Nothing really out there to support it yet.
  18. DDweatherman
    First piece of bad news, don't like the RGEM's trend at all on h5 vs 18z or 12z. Worst of the 3 thru 57. Holding too much energy back.
  19. DDweatherman
    yeah, lets just hope that type of solution holds...it would be fun to watch
  20. DDweatherman
    I hope we get a full run of the NAM within range and it holds or shows something similar. Then people can watch the evolution of a look like that and what would have happened overhead.
  21. DDweatherman
    Not to mention it was definitely about to cut off... Anyone hopping in the zoom soon? @psuhoffman and co
  22. DDweatherman
    I wish we had more frames, I'd be taking your lunch money (its not my forecast, I'm telling you what the NAM would have shown)
  23. DDweatherman
    ICON does suck as a model, looks better thru 24 up top.
  24. DDweatherman
    People who track snowstorms here know what happens when a low sub 990 and a closed h5 at our lat means with big time fronto overhead.
  25. DDweatherman
    That really doesn't matter with that type of evolution at the upper levels. Its easy to say because its the NAM so its not worth parsing that much regardless. But if the GFS ran that exact run and beyond 84, it would be over a foot up the 95 corridor, no questions asked.
×
×
  • Create New...