Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,586
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    23Yankee
    Newest Member
    23Yankee
    Joined

Jan 4-6 Coastal Bomb


Baroclinic Zone

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

still yet another philosophy in how to look at this ... if that NAM/RGEM solution is correct ... er   ...that would have to be a pretty substantial bust for the ECMWF folks.  I mean, it wouldn't fairly be a catastrophic bust because the Euro hasn't been a noshow either... But, you're talking 3-6" pedestrian amts with some annoying wind, versus high impact short duration blizzard with more than a foot ...

I was also just looking more at Maine and wow does the NAM spare no one up there... That's like 15 straight hours of 3"/hr rates on average in that synoptic look up that way. 

so,... the NAM is 15 to 30" from S-N through NE ... E of the Tollan... interesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was following GFS at 500 as it trickled in....when the hour 45 panel showed up my thought was "It's coming."  The orientation was better, the heights out front were better, etc.  Then by hour 51/54 it just gets kicked east and the result is the same.  Glancing blow.  Very frustrating.   

But still a step in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chrisrotary12 said:

Was following GFS at 500 as it trickled in....when the hour 45 panel showed up my thought was "It's coming."  The orientation was better, the heights out front were better, etc.  Then by hour 51/54 it just gets kicked east and the result is the same.  Glancing blow.  Very frustrating.   

But still a step in the right direction.

Thats exactly Where we want that garbage model right now

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chrisrotary12 said:

Was following GFS at 500 as it trickled in....when the hour 45 panel showed up my thought was "It's coming."  The orientation was better, the heights out front were better, etc.  Then by hour 51/54 it just gets kicked east and the result is the same.  Glancing blow.  Very frustrating.   

But still a step in the right direction.

You wonder when NCEP Is going to realize the GFS has to be scrapped.  I keep hearing of a new model replacing it but last I was told it was delayed til 2021 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

NAM bufkit numbers BAF 14.8,ORH 17.1, BED 21.0 ,BDL 16.4 ,CON 20.2 ,Bos 23.4, GYX 22.3 ,MPV 9.0

Do you have ORE and AQW?  

 

Oh to be at Pit2.......

2 minutes ago, SnowGoose69 said:

You wonder when NCEP Is going to realize the GFS has to be scrapped.  I keep hearing of a new model replacing it but last I was told it was delayed til 2021 

Well, we hear the same of the NAM.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, moneypitmike said:

Do you have ORE and AQW?  

 

Oh to be at Pit2.......

Well, we hear the same of the NAM.

 

The NAM replacement I think is closer and I believe it’s going to be an ensemble system similar to the SREF.  At least last I was told about 18 months ago that was the case that it wouldn’t be replaced by a singular model 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Chrisrotary12 said:

Was following GFS at 500 as it trickled in....when the hour 45 panel showed up my thought was "It's coming."  The orientation was better, the heights out front were better, etc.  Then by hour 51/54 it just gets kicked east and the result is the same.  Glancing blow.  Very frustrating.   

But still a step in the right direction.

IMO, the ots/graze fears should be allayed at this point. 

We have narrowed the goal posts significantly already today and that is exclusively on the east side. I think we have to understand that the SLP track during that time frame depends on a multitude of factors. The easier to resolve aspects moved markedly in favor of a track closer to the coast. The opening up at h500 at said hrs is what spoiled some of the improvement in terms of sensible weather outcomes. This aspect is highly uncertain though, and could change several more times (in either direction) into go time...

A track with significant impacts in the northeast is no longer tenuous imo. We are not hanging our hats on "deeper convection" or "a better phase". The whole longwave setup and shortwave development (both streams) has improved across guidance. I don't think we can ask for much more at this point...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Chrisrotary12 said:

Was following GFS at 500 as it trickled in....when the hour 45 panel showed up my thought was "It's coming."  The orientation was better, the heights out front were better, etc.  Then by hour 51/54 it just gets kicked east and the result is the same.  Glancing blow.  Very frustrating.   

But still a step in the right direction.

i smiled when I saw that exact sort of evolution/interpretation ...

it's like come hell or high water, it won't admit it - hahaha. 

it's probably going to fight tooth and nail, conceding in inches every cycle.. It's still 60 hours away, but it's only 30 hours from taking shape.  I find it interesting that the consternation also begins when ?  60 hours 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The possible difficulties among the global models and big differences with the mesoscale models may well be the result of a complex phasing situation with which the guidance has noted difficulty in the medium range. From Kocin, Uccellini et al. on the December 2010 Boxing Day blizzard:

The entire suite of European, Canadian and U.S. models didn’t converge on the correct forecast scenario until 36 to 48 hours prior to the onset of the heaviest snow, generally late on the 24th through early on the 25th.  Furthermore, the significant model differences on 24 December 2010 contributed to forecaster uncertainty...  It wasn’t until the 1200 UTC 25 December model cycles that all the models converged on a solution that put New York City squarely in the area of heavy snowfall and blizzard conditions on 26 December...

...we do note that this case was marked by the complex phasing of different short-wave upper-level troughs upstream of the cyclogenetic event.  These phasing characteristics are a marker for La Nina patterns which existed for the Winter 2010/2011, which are known to be particularly difficult to forecast with certainty in the medium range.

http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/winter_storm_summaries/event_reviews/2010/December25_27_2010_Blizzard.pdf

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...