nyblizz44 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Tbh, I'd rather have Jeter up at bat with Mariano waiting in the bullpen. In a meteorological note, I really think we're nowhere near the eighth inning with this storm. The storm is still yet to be sampled. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk Things will start to be crystallized 12 z today and 24 hours after that we will be nearly there. More realistically, In bottom of the sixth but right now we're down 5-1 with men on base so let's see what happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheManWithNoFace Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 The big feature with the 00z suite, imho, is the s/w feature that earthlight spoke about which is suppressing the height fields. This feature, while not sampled quite fully either, has huge implications with regards to the eventual evolution of our storm. The 18z Rgem showed this feature being more sheared and quicker than the Euro or Gfs depicted at 12z. Is this just noise, or is the Rgem on to something? That remains to be seen, however, with the Rgem being a damn good short range, I tend to believe we will see a different solution at 00z. Furthermore, the AO is relaxing very quickly (as the AO tends to chat get quickly from my experience) and this is also going to allow less suppression imho. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk US- I think the AO is actually relaxing more slowly than forecasted, which would suggest stronger suppression. The measured index is at the lower bound of the 7 day forecast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superstorm93 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Not that it matters much for this model but the 00z NAM initialized with most of the energy still offshore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongBeachSurfFreak Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 SREFS moved north vs 15z. We take it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlsterCountySnowZ Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 NAM is stronger and slower than its 18z, not that it matters this far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlsterCountySnowZ Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Nams NW slightly of its 18z run thru 64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 The S/W over Maine needs to get out of the way-pronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 anyone with knowledge of the sref members know what to make of every single ARW being north and every NMB member being like the euro and way south? the mean is just an average of the crazy north/wet arw and the dry nmb runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ericjcrash Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Out of range NAM is encouraging, albeit not worth much. Overrunning potential looks better and that is key for colossal numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherFox Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 How do u side with 2 models that are night and day.. Even the ensembles look nothing like the euro op? I was just reporting that there as a shift south for the NYC area. I recognize things can change back north in future runs. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allsnow Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Nam would be a great hit fwiw Hghts rise along the east coast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlsterCountySnowZ Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I was just reporting that there as a shift south for the NYC area. I recognize things can change back north in future runs. Good luck! I was referring to the NWS themselves sorry not you personally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Nam would be a great hit fwiw Hghts rise along the east coast The confluence is so much weaker but it's likely wrong because it's the 84hr NAM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snywx Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 What in the world is the NAM doing at 84 lol.. It has it going NW from cape hatteras to Williamsburg VA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooklynwx99 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I know that this is the NAM, but the heights are higher in NE when compared to the 18z GFS. 00Z NAM 18z GFS Hopefully the weaker confluence maintains throughout the 00z suite. Either way, this isn't a step backwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USCG RS Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Nam would be a great hit fwiw Hghts rise along the east coastNam would be a long duration hit for the entire eastern seaboard. With that being said, I usually stop watching the NAM after 42/48 hours and the big take aways I saw were two fold. One : the NAM agrees with the rgem in terms of sheering out the northern stream perturbation. Two : our s/w does not dig nearly as far as the other globals show. That's huge. Edit : I hate my new keyboard. I can't type. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlsterCountySnowZ Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Comparing the GFS and nam same timeframe.. The northwestern side of the precip is really the major difference, really expands westwards as oppose to a flat overall northern shield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WintersGrasp Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 What in the world is the NAM doing at 84 lol.. It has it going NW from cape hatteras to Williamsburg VA Lol the low outlines the coast of North Carolina then into VA toward DC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelocita Weather Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 NAM....way nw, brings precip issues to many in va/md/de/s nj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superstorm93 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I mean its the NAM, but thats an excellent look Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlsterCountySnowZ Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Wow.... Kinda reminds me of the.. Ummmmm GGEM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelocita Weather Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 Too early to tell for sure, but by upper air, surface, and sim radar that would be a huge hit area wide... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchel Volk Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 NAM >60hrs do not even bother. Howeve, I do believe the there will be a track north of today's ECMWF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnoSki14 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Having an amped Nam even in its la la range can be a good sign for future model runs but if the data it ingested is worthless then it doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherFox Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 What makes this really intellectually lazy is that who the NWS sides with has nothing to do with snow potential. I see you are a smart person. Don't you respect the education of the mets at the NWS for interpreting the models, the meteorology and revising their thoughts in an AFD? I noted that I was quoting their thoughts. If earlier they believed the storm track would be further south of NYC that would be a factor influencing the cities snowfall potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drz1111 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I see you are a smart person. Don't you respect the education of the mets at the NWS for interpreting the models, the meteorology and revising their thoughts in an AFD? I noted that I was quoting their thoughts. If earlier they believed the storm track would be further south of NYC that would be a factor influencing the cities snowfall potential. Sure, but it's double counting to say "the ECWMF went south, AND the NWS moved the track south". The NWS moved the track south BECAUSE the ECWMF went south. So you're not adding information by considering both - either consider the NWS forecast alone (which reflects their best guess at weighting/blending the models) or make your own blend that excludes the NWS forecast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdp146 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 To confirm.. the first panel of the 0z GFS that has the 1003mb low offshore of Washington is the energy for our system, so this run will still not be fully sampled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlsterCountySnowZ Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 To confirm.. the first panel of the 0z GFS that has the 1003mb low offshore of Washington is the energy for our system, so this run will still not be fully sampled? Correct, similar sampling as NAM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superstorm93 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherFox Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 To confirm.. the first panel of the 0z GFS that has the 1003mb low offshore of Washington is the energy for our system, so this run will still not be fully sampled? Yes, I would say that is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.