Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,509
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

Jan 23-24 Storm Banter


ORH_wxman

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 956
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Andy that however changed my QPF.from .3 to 1.4 but its all irrelevant. Huge jump from 18z

I still think the dry air aloft over NY/SNE will "steal" a lot of the QPF being forecast..I could envision virga for 6-8 hours these areas on late Friday - early Saturday...not too excited for a Northern surprise or snow bomb...GFS has been very consistent along with other global models.

Now if the 12z runs (or even the 6z run of the GFS) ticks north thanks to all the additional U/A data I may start to get excited a wee bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the dry air aloft of NY/SNE will "steal" a lot of the QPF being forecast..I could envison virga for 608 hours these areas on late Friday - Saturday...not to excited for a Northern surprise or snow bomb...GFS has been very consistent along with other global models.

Now if the 12z runs (or even the 6z run of the GFS) ticks north thanks to all the additional U/A data I may start to get excited.

absolutely, I think the virga might be overstated in near oceanic counties though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Euro was awesome in Feb 2013...though it didn't have that death band in CT, but no model really did. NAM might have had it on a run or two.

NAM rarely wins in its current form. Back when it was the ETA model, it scored some coups...the last being Dec 9, 2005 shortly before it was changed to the NAM-WRF.

 

I think calling the NAM the clear winner in 2013 is a bit of a stretch. There was excellent model consensus for high QPF. The NAM may have had the absolute max QPF right, but it also had it over far too large an area. So is that right or wrong in the end?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think calling the NAM the clear winner in 2013 is a bit of a stretch. There was excellent model consensus for high QPF. The NAM may have had the absolute max QPF right, but it also had it over far too large an area. So is that right or wrong in the end?

Nam had a death band, but it was displaced well northeast of Ct. Its qpf was overblown, too--not that that's unusual. But there was at least one run where it dumped 60" in northern Mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nam had a death band, but it was displaced well northeast of Ct. Its qpf was overblown, too--not that that's unusual. But there was at least one run where it dumped 60" in northern Mass.

the signal was there and tossed. Never forget that discussion here. Kev Ray called for 30 lollies and were weenied. Conservative forecasts are usually right but been some big big storms where caution should have been thrown out the window.That was one of them
Link to comment
Share on other sites

post-6270-0-42354600-1453441442_thumb.jp

Some intense convection of the coast with the 4km NAM. 

Silly question...Does the high res NAM models use totally diff algorithms than the control run on the NAM on Twisterdata and COD and whatnot (what is it, the 12km NAM I think)? It's not just like it's a higher res version of essentially the same initial conditions?

 

post-6270-0-57868000-1453441768_thumb.jp

Here's my map from earlier today. I don't think I'll change a whole lot. Taunton and recent GFS runs show something similar. Winds are prob a little bullish, but I think the highest gusts could reach 60mph on extreme SNE coast and Islands. Maybe a few 45-55mph gusts for New Bed, Plymouth, S RI I think. 

 

 

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...