SnowGoose69 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 It's somewhat bizarre the SREFs want no part of this thing getting squashed off. It's not like we are 87 hours out, they look pretty good at 48/60 when they aren't exactly totally useless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBG Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I don't think there is any model currently just showing 1-3" for NYC so I am not sure where that particular poster got that from. Like I said in a previous post, I still like 12" for the NYC metro and we will see where the 12z runs take us today. The mainstream forecasts are pushing back the start of the snow till late Saturday afternoon but still ending it early Sunday morning. That's how you start to wind up with 1"-3" forecasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 As some have mentioned, the SREF mean looks great. Very similar to 03z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlsterCountySnowZ Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 It's somewhat bizarre the SREFs want no part of this thing getting squashed off. It's not like we are 87 hours out, they look pretty good at 48/60 when they aren't exactly totally useless Not to play homer, but it eludes to the point you are making, SREFS all the way up to Newburgh, aka northern Orange County, have gotten way wetter, the mean for Newburgh is 1.17 with a max of 3.8", with only a hand full of members showing 0", it seems that the members either show 1+ this far north, or 0".. There really isn't a middle ground, which could lead me to believe 2 things... They are picking up on the right gradient, and the SREFS are out to lunch on where that sets up, or the globals are not handling the extent of the northern precip shield and the CCB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Winter Storm Watches have been extended Northward in NJ and into NY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WintersGrasp Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 As some have mentioned, the SREF mean looks great. Very similar to 03z. I've noticed that the SREFs are often skewed by a few member's numbers which are always 3x higher than the others. Is that the case here ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 It's somewhat bizarre the SREFs want no part of this thing getting squashed off. It's not like we are 87 hours out, they look pretty good at 48/60 when they aren't exactly totally useless Sref was the first model to trend west with this past weekend storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlsterCountySnowZ Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I've noticed that the SREFs are often skewed by a few member's numbers which are always 3x higher than the others. Is that the case here ? Typically, but the number of SREFS that are similar is something that should warrant a closer look... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I know it's not smart to try and extrapolate a short term model but it looks like based off the 06z RGEM 54 hr position that the significant snow line would very similar to the 00z NAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 the greatest drop from December to January was in 1857...an above average December gave way to the coldest January on record...The 'Great Cold Snowstorm of 1857' was around this time in Jan. 1857... 1857 from the ny daily tribune... http://chroniclingam...-20/ed-1/seq-5/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danstorm Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I know it's not smart to try and extrapolate a short term model but it looks like based off the 06z 54 hr position that the significant snow line would very similar to the 00z NAM. Are you referring to the RGEM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Are you referring to the RGEM? Yes I went back and edited the post. Running on like 4-5 hours sleep for three days straight isn't the best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WintersGrasp Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Yes I went back and edited the post. Running on like 4-5 hours sleep for three days straight isn't the best I've gone to sleep pretending that I'm not going to look at the newest model data, but somehow wake up a couple hours later and find myself checking it. Damnit!! And I agree, the RGEM does look good up to the end of its run, and is similar to the NAM at that time. Next couple frames are the big ones, so it'll be interesting to see what it does at 12z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drz1111 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 My thoughts this AM (worth what you pay for them): I'm stumped. The strong gradient forecast made some sense - we've seen it in past storms. PDI. 2/2010. And it was fairly consistently depicted over the last 3 days, showing up better in high res models and worse in low res models. But this new depiction - the fizzle - is really, really weird. It seems to rely on the storm never developing a full CCB. Given anomalously warm SSTs and a strong baroclinic zone, it's not even that the storm occludes (though it does) so much as the lift just never happens up here. That's very odd and not consistent with any storm I can find in the KU book (which I flipped through last night). So my view now is I am complete baffled. I don't trust the globals' depiction but they're obviously 'seeing' something. Whether that something is a glitch in the model that's being exposed by a really unusual event, or just a really unusual event that's behaving unlike any of our analog storms, remains to be seen. My gut is still that we get a ton of snow here. But something odd is afoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 When the NAM at 12z starts cutting its obscene qpf totals from 0z/6z, dont jump. As long as swath of heaviest qpf axis is similar, thats not a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 It should be noted that the SREF mean is being inflated (as usual) by the ARW members. The ARW mean is 1.91". The NMB mean is 0.75". 81% of ARW members show 1.50" or more and 36% show 2.00" or more. The 4-run averages are as follows: ARW: 1.64" NMB: 0.68" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WintersGrasp Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 It should be noted that the SREF mean is being inflated (as usual) by the ARW members. The ARW mean is 1.91". The NMB mean is 0.75". 81% of ARW members show 1.50" or more and 36% show 2.00" or more. The 4-run averages are as follows: ARW: 1.64" NMB: 0.68" A-ha, I was afraid of that.....Don, any idea why these ARW members are even factored into the SREF mean? It seems as though they would be much, much better and more accurate excluding those numbers/models from it. In general, they can usually just be ignored since they're always so much higher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 the greatest drop from December to January was in 1857...an above average December gave way to the coldest January on record...The 'Great Cold Snowstorm of 1857' was around this time in Jan. 1857... 1857 from the ny daily tribune... http://chroniclingam...-20/ed-1/seq-5/ Awesome read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morris Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Heights are lower along the East coast on the NAM on Friday afternoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 The confluence is stronger because the shortwave energy in Maine is stronger and a bit further SW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Early predictions are that the 12z NAM comes in a bit south of the 06z run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morris Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Through 27 it's a little south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 A-ha, I was afraid of that.....Don, any idea why these ARW members are even factored into the SREF mean? It seems as though they would be much, much better and more accurate excluding those numbers/models from it. In general, they can usually just be ignored since they're always so much higher I'm not sure why that's the case. FWIW, SREF has 11 ARW members and 9 NMB members. If one excludes the 6 most extreme members (5 of which are ARW members), the remaining SREF members saw the mean qpf drop from 1.19" at 3z to 0.94" at 9z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F5TornadoF5 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Precip shield at 33hr is a bit more north at DC than 6z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 The heights are about 25-30 miles further Southeast so I would think the main precip shield shifts SE by about that amount from 06z but it's still early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyblizz44 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 The heights are about 25-30 miles further Southeast so I would think the main precip shield shifts SE by about that amount from 06z but it's still early. If you r right , with Nam now in its range, that's not good at all as an indicator. No one run will make or break but we shall C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drz1111 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 If you r right , with Nam now in its range, that's not good at all as an indicator. No one run will make or break but we shall C Isn't that an excellent indicator? It would mean the NAM is still showing heavy snow in NYC, in the range where it's accuracy goes way up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazwoper Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 If you r right , with Nam now in its range, that's not good at all as an indicator. No one run will make or break but we shall C It's still showing an open h5 when GFS is not. This will still wind up much further north compared to GFS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Awesome read thanks...I found many stories of 1800's snowstorms and hurricanes from old newspapers that are free on line... http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1920-02-07/ed-1/#tab=tab_newspapers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.