Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,502
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Weathernoob335
    Newest Member
    Weathernoob335
    Joined

December 17th Clipper Discussion


ORH_wxman

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Remember that storm in early January of last year that the GFS and GEFS blew up as a tucked in coastal 24-36 hours out? We still ended up getting a decent storm in se mass..but overall the GFS and the agreeable GEFS were out to lunch. Hopefully this isn't a repeat.

 

Well they do agree in a very similar fashion this time. Just need to see what the euro does...what you don't want is this to be the climax and the 6z and 12z runs back down a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm out. Hopefully the GFS is correct, but I still question the aggressiveness of the model. No doubt it will snow and probably a moderate snow event for some areas.

Sounds good.  If we're throwing flags out, meaning we'll have to take 3-4" over 6"+, I'll take that concession.  Should be fun to watch unfold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm out. Hopefully the GFS is correct, but I still question the aggressiveness of the model. No doubt it will snow and probably a moderate snow event for some areas.

Was thinking the same thing this could be the west goal post. One camp is totally wrong.

Gfs has some support from the hrrr. Euro needs to give some ground. Watch the euro be even bigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big picture says tight thermal gradient/strong baroclinicity (enhanced by snowcover) plus strong PVA equals rapid surface deepening.  That's a powder keg.  But the ingredients don't help if the non-GFS guidance is correct in tainting the baroclinic zone behind the 1st wave thereby preventing a second round of coastal cyclogenesis.

 

Considering the short range disagreement here, if the GFS is picking up on something real, this could evolve right passed what the GFS is currently showing.  Right now I think the good snows will be confined to EMA up into coastal ME. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to get from MHT to Keene at 930pm tomorrow. Little worried just because these systems can easily become over-performers. All it takes is a little sharper shortwave initially, and things take off on the coast quickly. GFS is definitely the sharpest, because it doesn't have that lead impulse at all, for some reason. NAM uses the lead impulse in a big way, but QPF bias applies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the new map from BOX has alot of us in the 4 to 6 range

 

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/StormTotalSnow/index.php

I buy that over what Bouchard has. I personally am leaning towards a 2-5" with spots of 6-7" N and W of coast (like Essex & Middlesex counties/S. NH/high elevated areas in MA interior like ORH). Cape/Islands C-2". I'm keeping this as basic as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

man what is GFS missing here... once again squelches the lead impulse and allows vortmax behind it to dominate cyclogenesis

would love for it to be correct but I'm cautious... 

at h5 verification: 6z NAM is very close to 9z RAP at 15z Tuesday, 6z GFS looks on its own

 

would toss GFS but 3z SREFs also ticked up, and this is so close to something bigger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...