Atomixwx Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 What are you seeing, is more the question. CTP doesn't just base their forecast on the NAM. No one does. I'm quite aware of that. A couple of pages ago I noted that two on-air meteorologists, one being AllWeather had discussed or posted graphics showing a much different solution than the ones CTP has been posting this evening. The spread between them seems to be quite sizable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eskimo Joe Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 For better or worse, it's the NAM. Chill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I've expressed my frustrations at the seemingly new style of snowstorm over in the complaint thread already...but whatever. Back to our region and seeking the next threat (for those of us "north" of 81 - I understand what's meant now but still don't like the distinction tbqh) My friends in the NYC area even talk about it as the "new climo" where being along the northeast coast is better then being inland. I have laughed it off for a long time but have to wonder if they are onto something. Just seems that the new type of storm pattern is for intense but more tightly wound systems. Not good for those of us inland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heavy_wx Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 NAM does seem to want to be farther south than most guidance. I've also noticed that over the past two storms where banding actually occurred, the best omegas were actually placed farther north than guidance plotted leading into the event. As a result, the surface banding structures were farther north, and areas that weren't expected to a moderate snow were able to cash in. Just my two cents, and something I am watching here. It happened several times last year. My general rule of thumb is you want to be where the best omegas cross the -10 850 line. As per the NAM & GFS, that area is right around/just north of the Mason-Dixon Line. If you compare the frontogenesis slope (contours at 850, 700, 600 mb) between the 18z GFS and the 00z NAM, you can see that the 850 mb contour (red) is in a similar position on both models. However, in the NAM depiction, the 700 mb (and 600 mb) frontogenesis is essentially collocated with the 850 mb frontogenesis. This indicates that the frontal circulation is more upright vs the GFS; which has a more sloped circulation towards colder air. This may be why the precipitation field from the NAM is much narrower than the GFS. The forcing for rising motion would then be over a larger area in the GFS and increasing in height as one goes towards the northwest. The NAM has a sharp cut-off because the forcing is more aligned vertically and does not slope towards the northwest. 18z GFS: 00z NAM I think the more steeply sloped circulation seen in the NAM solution may be a result of the slightly higher mid-level lapse rates (or lower stability). We'll have to see if these less stable lapse rates are legitimate, though there are only about 1C greater than the GFS. The 250 mb jet streak is a bit stronger in the NAM solution which could support greater divergence and the presence of these elevated lapse rates. Again, there probably is another explanation for the difference in slopes of the frontogenetic circulation but it is something to watch nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I feel your pain, I really do. I'm quite well known for not much caring for snow and winter, so I really cannot stand the nickle and dime, slop up the roads for nothing, events. If I have to put up with snow, then I want it to be worthwhile, like to the tune of an 8-12 inch event. That is exactly how I feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomixwx Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I don't think you guys are understanding me properly, this isn't "whining". It's an actual question. A fair one, I believe as well. edit: and reading MAG's breakdown, I think I got the answer I was seeking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Come back to Baltimore for work, and buy a house here is southern york county. It's like Manchester but cheaper. That is definitely an option on the table... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllWeather Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 If you compare the frontogenesis slope (contours at 850, 700, 600 mb) between the 18z GFS and the 00z NAM, you can see that the 850 mb contour (red) is in a similar position on both models. However, in the NAM depiction, the 700 mb (and 600 mb) frontogenesis is essentially collocated with the 850 mb frontogenesis. This indicates that the frontal circulation is more upright vs the GFS; which has a more sloped circulation towards colder air. This may be why the precipitation field from the NAM is much narrower than the GFS. The forcing for rising motion would then be over a larger area in the GFS and increasing in height as one goes towards the northwest. The NAM has a sharp cut-off because the forcing is more aligned vertically and does not slope towards the northwest. 18z GFS: FRNTSLOPEgfs212F24.png 00z NAM FRNTSLOPEnam212F18.png I think the more steeply sloped circulation seen in the NAM solution may be a result of the slightly higher mid-level lapse rates (or lower stability). We'll have to see if these less stable lapse rates are legitimate, though there are only about 1C greater than the GFS. The 250 mb jet streak is a bit stronger in the NAM solution which could support greater divergence and the presence of these elevated lapse rates. Again, there probably is another explanation for the difference in slopes of the frontogenetic circulation but it is something to watch nonetheless. Great discussion, and you're absolutely correct. If the NAM is correct, those on the northern edge of the best omegas will see quite the cut off from NW to SE. Tough call for now, but definitely something to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllWeather Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I don't think you guys are understanding me properly, this isn't "whining". It's an actual question. A fair one, I believe as well. edit: and reading MAG's breakdown, I think I got the answer I was seeking. I actually agree with you, I think CTP's northern edge is too broad, and should be tightened up. Also, maybe a little tilt to the QPF gradient from SW to NE should be added (particularly in the eastern counties), instead of just a straight W-E depiction. Otherwise, I think their numbers are pretty good in the heart of the LSV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djr5001 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 remember too that CTP's map is mainly based on 1-2", 2-4", 4-6", etc... locations with a 1-3" forecast will come up on the map as being in the 2-4" zone so it makes the map look a little off of their forecast text numbers... right now they have Harrisburg 3-5" and is in the 4-6" range on map for example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAG5035 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Again, what is CTP seeing that others aren't. CTP may be weighing more heavily on the SREF QPF means, as well as the GFS having been fairly consistent with it's precip shield placement being a bit more expansive in the southern half of PA. The Euro and NAM had trended heavier precip further north today towards these solutions as well, even though they've never really gotten as far north coverage wise. So the support is there but we have model guidance like the NAM that has a very tight gradient. We're also talking a high ratio event that will generally be below a half inch QPF for most of us. The very far southern tier will likely be the only ones that crack a half inch. An extra 0.05-0.1" of QPF could mean 1-2". It's probably going to take near term guidance like the HRRR and RAP to really nail down extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 00z GFS holds serve. Orientation is slightly more tilted SW-NE, but amounts are similar most areas. A touch less in SW PA, a touch more in SE PA, about the same up in this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternUSWX Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Wish people would stop talking about the NAM. GFS still booming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieOber Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Voyager, you summed up my thoughts exactly. If there is something I hate it's 15 degrees and a light pointless snow falling making travel bad but not enough to cause delays. Give me a 6 plus inch high impact storm or warm weather. Fun fact that I did a little research on: Last five winters, UNV has had 8 6"+ storms, NYC....8 6"+ storms. Of course they move ahead of us tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternUSWX Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 That's a lot of snow. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paweather5 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I'm thinking that as the models (particularly short range) pick up on the slow(er) invasion of cold air, we'll see this continue to level out to a more NW trend resulting in a system closer to the coast. I have seen a few good mets talking about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieOber Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 FWIW, NWS has me and State College up to 90% chance of snow for tomorrow. It was 60% earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeffsvilleWx Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Some of the best disco I've seen here in a while. Thanks and please keep it up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomixwx Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Wish people would stop talking about the NAM. GFS still booming. HA. DT just posted this, which made me laugh hard. ** ABOUT THE 0Z NAM *** WHO GIVES A **** and WHY ARE YOU .. yes YOU... LOOKING AT IT ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NortheastPAWx Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 FWIW, NWS has me and State College up to 90% chance of snow for tomorrow. It was 60% earlier. Er wouldn't it be pretty much logical to increase snow chances now that we're closer in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 My friends in the NYC area even talk about it as the "new climo" where being along the northeast coast is better then being inland. I have laughed it off for a long time but have to wonder if they are onto something. Just seems that the new type of storm pattern is for intense but more tightly wound systems. Not good for those of us inland. 2004-05 really seemed to start this pattern, where storms would blow up more on the coast and skip over well inland areas. The exclamation point on this of course was 2-12-06 (which this storm may resemble in the end, not in terms of amounts but in terms of distribution), where NYC had a 40"+ winter and central PA and even well north of there essentially had a two week winter. I remember being in moonlit flurries in State College on 2-11-06 and seeing I-95 get annihilated. Not fun for sure. Central PA is just a tough spot in general for being in the bullseye in these storms-you really need a March 1993-type Miller A hugging the coast to really do it, or a storm that blows up far enough south and on the coast for snow to wrap back inland like Nov 1995. The 1990s and early 2000s seemed to have more of these systems, but in the last 9-10 years that has definitely changed. I'd still say that most of you guys should hit average this winter given the strong start the region has had and the longer snow season there than we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternUSWX Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 HA. DT just posted this, which made me laugh hard. ** ABOUT THE 0Z NAM *** WHO GIVES A **** and WHY ARE YOU .. yes YOU... LOOKING AT IT ? Exactly. NCEP and NWS always throw it out of their consensus cause it is a terrible model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NortheastPAWx Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Ugh 2005-06 winter. That one just completely shut down on us after the New Year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieOber Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Er wouldn't it be pretty much logical to increase snow chances now that we're closer in? No, not for less than 24 hours out. They had 60% for us in the late afternoon update. Even for a fringer like this, I've never seen POPs that low. It made me think they were concerned about a total whiff but aren't now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternUSWX Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Well this snow won't melt anytime soon. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieOber Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 2004-05 really seemed to start this pattern, where storms would blow up more on the coast and skip over well inland areas. The exclamation point on this of course was 2-12-06 (which this storm may resemble in the end, not in terms of amounts but in terms of distribution), where NYC had a 40"+ winter and central PA and even well north of there essentially had a two week winter. I remember being in moonlit flurries in State College on 2-11-06 and seeing I-95 get annihilated. Not fun for sure. Central PA is just a tough spot in general for being in the bullseye in these storms-you really need a March 1993-type Miller A hugging the coast to really do it, or a storm that blows up far enough south and on the coast for snow to wrap back inland like Nov 1995. The 1990s and early 2000s seemed to have more of these systems, but in the last 9-10 years that has definitely changed. I'd still say that most of you guys should hit average this winter given the strong start the region has had and the longer snow season there than we have. 2005-2006 started fast with the pretty big early December storm but ran into a wall in January. We can get in on coastals, but I think the key is lucking out on bands getting far enough north. That's how we got 15" from the early Feb 2010 storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-83 BLIZZARD Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Well this snow won't melt anytime soon. lolRight! Also if the gfs is right your snow map might have to bump to 14 for the mason dixon. With convective banding who knows how high it might go down here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 2005-2006 started fast with the pretty big early December storm but ran into a wall in January. We can get in on coastals, but I think the key is lucking out on bands getting far enough north. That's how we got 15" from the early Feb 2010 storm. The 2/6/10 storm is one I'd rather forget. Confluence killed us around NYC and literally 30 miles separated a foot from an inch. One thing I liked in central PA was how often snow would fall on top of fallen snow. That's very rare for us near the coast-we might get big snow events but warm air easily can erase it fast. 2010-11 was the one winter I remember where we would have snow on top of snow. When that mega miller A finally comes around one day I'll be the first one rooting for you guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieOber Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 The 2/6/10 storm is one I'd rather forget. Confluence killed us around NYC and literally 30 miles separated a foot from an inch. One thing I liked in central PA was how often snow would fall on top of fallen snow. That's very rare for us near the coast-we might get big snow events but warm air easily can erase it fast. 2010-11 was the one winter I remember where we would have snow on top of snow. When that mega miller A finally comes around one day I'll be the first one rooting for you guys. The greatest storm in PSU history was the Feb 9-10 snow when people were bitching on the Penn State Facebook page about PSU not closing and some administrator got on the PSU FB page and yelled at students and said something like "you had no problem getting around for your snowball fights after the big snow Friday" and that there was hardly any snow. Plus, they said commuters and staff shouldn't have any issue coming into work. UNV only got like 3 but I got 9 and Altoona got a foot due to this insane band that set up, so staff and faculty who live out our way flipped out because they didn't know it wasn't snowing much at UNV and the PSU person didn't realize it was really bad out our way. The FB page exploded. It has been mentioned in two presentations at conferences I've been at on how not to handle social media Tellin' ya, it was classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canderson Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Holy crap we might not see 32 degrees for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.