ice1972 Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, weatherwiz said: I am...supposed to fly out to TX too at like 5 AM Friday morning. I might wake up at 6:00 AM and make a snow forecast since I have to do stuff after work and it would be like 10 PM before I could which would be cheating but if I had to do something now...I would maybe do 4-8'' east of the River. I would **** bricks though about the upper end of the range 4-8 too safe here......I get it dude but I'd be at 6-12 I think......#IHateThisStorm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoth Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, JBinStoughton said: So the GFS is saying that the entire area of eastern SNE, where all of the models have been putting the axis of heavy precip, is gonna get the squelch? I wouldn't worry about it. Almost certainly wrong. I was focused more on RI into eastern CT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, JBinStoughton said: So the GFS is saying that the entire area of eastern SNE, where all of the models have been putting the axis of heavy precip, is gonna get the squelch? Also, I don't think models in their QPF forecasts take into account such things like subsidence so for areas outside of where heaviest banding would appear to setup its always best to really explore things and see if that QPF makes sense. Models could be better with it though...I know they've improved with depicting things like downslope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STILL N OF PIKE Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 24 minutes ago, OceanStWx said: This was the 18z GFS at 18z Thursday. This is the 700 mb forcing A very nice arcing warm front, with a strong banding signature immediately NW of it. Question, i noticed on the 18z and 0z (gfs runs) that v.v's@7H were Jacked up for a short 3hr period /very transient (over SNE), While V.V's@5H were jacked up for like 10hours over some parts of the area. Is the area just NW of that tremendous lift at 500mb Gonna Experience huge banding or not so much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 1 minute ago, ice1972 said: 4-8 too safe here......I get it dude but I'd be at 6-12 I think......#IHateThisStorm I think we get kinda screwed...I think b/c we are farm from the center we get more band like precip and I think we will be fighting all sorts of subsidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, weatherwiz said: Yes. The placement of that area on the model is incongruent with its area of deformation...its aligned with it. That screw slot should be further west on that run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, weatherwiz said: Also, I don't think models in their QPF forecasts take into account such things like subsidence ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 1 minute ago, weatherwiz said: I think we get kinda screwed...I think b/c we are farm from the center we get more band like precip and I think we will be fighting all sorts of subsidence. Agree....like 3-6"/4-8". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIPPYVALLEY Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 1 minute ago, weatherwiz said: I think we get kinda screwed...I think b/c we are farm from the center we get more band like precip and I think we will be fighting all sorts of subsidence. The baking powder snow will certainly factor into the so called western "screw zones". Shattered dendrites are sometimes over stated but it's certainly a real factor in a big, wound up coastal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said: The placement of that area on the model is incongruent with its area of deformation...its aligned with it. That screw slot should be further west on that run. yeah I could see that being the case. I think b/c the degree of upward vertical motion is so intense that the gradient between +VV's and -VV's is going to be so small that it will be a difference of several miles from heavy snow and like light snow. Tough for models to really resolve. This could also be a case where even in areas of subsidence you can still rip 1''/HR rates lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice1972 Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 lol Ryans map tonight on air has me right on the line.....2-8 it is.....JFC I hate that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 35 minutes ago, OceanStWx said: This was the 18z GFS at 18z Thursday. This is the 700 mb forcing. A very nice arcing warm front, with a strong banding signature immediately NW of it. As we thought...there's the axis, might be a little west of that more in the TOL-ORH zone, too. E.NE FTMFW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIPPYVALLEY Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said: Agree....like 3-6"/4-8". I like 3-6" out here unless models come in even further W overnight. 4-8" for Hartford should certainly be manageable with this system. Kevin is right on the line for the bigger snows depending how this actually plays out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice1972 Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 6 minutes ago, weatherwiz said: I think we get kinda screwed...I think b/c we are farm from the center we get more band like precip and I think we will be fighting all sorts of subsidence. I hope you are wrong obviously but all we have to do is get a good band in here and that forecast is busted......it seems like its 50/50.....we'll see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 1 minute ago, ice1972 said: lol Ryans map tonight on air has me right on the line.....2-8 it is.....JFC I hate that We do that on purpose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, ice1972 said: lol Ryans map tonight on air has me right on the line.....2-8 it is.....JFC I hate that Or, 4" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 3 minutes ago, JC-CT said: ? models can still spit out decent QPF totals despite showing subsidence for that area. For example, say you look at 6 HR QPF map for CT and it spit out .5'' for the state and had a nice band over eastern CT...but you look at VV and bufkit profiles and see positive omega within the SGZ and negative VV's over W CT...W CT probably not getting .5'' QPF b/c of this but the algorithm or whatever is used to compute QPF doesn't take this into account Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weathafella Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 3z RPM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 1 minute ago, ice1972 said: I hope you are wrong obviously but all we have to do is get a good band in here and that forecast is busted......it seems like its 50/50.....we'll see It is very, very close...which is why I wasn't comfortable making a forecast tonight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Just now, weatherwiz said: models can still spit out decent QPF totals despite showing subsidence for that area. For example, say you look at 6 HR QPF map for CT and it spit out .5'' for the state and had a nice band over eastern CT...but you look at VV and bufkit profiles and see positive omega within the SGZ and negative VV's over W CT...W CT probably not getting .5'' QPF b/c of this but the algorithm or whatever is used to compute QPF doesn't take this into account It's just weird you don't think the models account for sinking air. Hard to imagine they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 13 minutes ago, STILL N OF PIKE said: Question, i noticed on the 18z and 0z (gfs runs) that v.v's@7H were Jacked up for a short 3hr period /very transient (over SNE), While V.V's@5H were jacked up for like 10hours over some parts of the area. Is the area just NW of that tremendous lift at 500mb Gonna Experience huge banding or not so much 500 mb is starting to get a little too high (cold) for significant banding. That 700 mb map I showed is sort of right in the sweet spot for dendritic growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Chris, do you have that H7 banding map for the 12z euro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 1 minute ago, JC-CT said: It's just weird you don't think the models account for sinking air. Hard to imagine they don't. well models do just not the QPF algorithm. Same reason why I can't stand the ridiculous model snowfall maps. They only take into account whatever is designed into their algorithm. I don't think they take into account things like where the DSZ is, how much moisture is in it, how much lift is in it, whether or not there is subsidence, etc. Think its mainly just max temperature in profile, a constant snowfall ratio (which is stupid b/c snowfall ratios are not constant throughout an entire duration of a storm), and QPF, and maybe a couple other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice1972 Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, CT Rain said: We do that on purpose lol.....Wait up for the Euro? At this point so close in does it even matter though? I recall a few maybe where it did......don't ask which ones though lol.....I'm not good like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 1 minute ago, weatherwiz said: well models do just not the QPF algorithm. Same reason why I can't stand the ridiculous model snowfall maps. They only take into account whatever is designed into their algorithm. I don't think they take into account things like where the DSZ is, how much moisture is in it, how much lift is in it, whether or not there is subsidence, etc. Think its mainly just max temperature in profile, a constant snowfall ratio (which is stupid b/c snowfall ratios are not constant throughout an entire duration of a storm), and QPF, and maybe a couple other things. Sounds like there is a lot of room for improvement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolri_wx Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 7 minutes ago, weatherwiz said: models can still spit out decent QPF totals despite showing subsidence for that area. For example, say you look at 6 HR QPF map for CT and it spit out .5'' for the state and had a nice band over eastern CT...but you look at VV and bufkit profiles and see positive omega within the SGZ and negative VV's over W CT...W CT probably not getting .5'' QPF b/c of this but the algorithm or whatever is used to compute QPF doesn't take this into account I think a more common sense reason why you get good QPF over areas of subsidence on model output is because those areas of subsidence fluctuate and move. Even the "RI snow hole" grows and shrinks over the duration of a storm. It also doesn't help that the GFS output is either 3 hours or 6 hours depending on time frame, and things are moving around between those output frames. This is why I like the simulated radar on the 3km NAM and the HRRR (once you get close enough) because it's much better at showing how that type of feature will show up at the surface, and it's hour-by-hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 9 minutes ago, ice1972 said: lol Ryans map tonight on air has me right on the line.....2-8 it is.....JFC I hate that 2-5" for the valley 5-8" for the elevation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Just now, ice1972 said: lol.....Wait up for the Euro? At this point so close in does it even matter though? I recall a few maybe where it did......don't ask which ones though lol.....I'm not good like that It mattered with Juno. A lot of media outlets wouldn't have busted so bad if it weren't for the 24 hour Euro! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Just now, JC-CT said: Sounds like there is a lot of room for improvement That's where the upgrades come in! Don't forget the equations thrown into these models are insane...incredibly complex series of partial differential equations which people can't solve so computers do them lol. There are always tweaks being done to the equations and work done into how the equations can be further fine tuned and figuring out which terms in some of the equations hold significant importance and which terms are so insignificant that they don't really matter and can be ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice1972 Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 1 minute ago, JC-CT said: It mattered with Juno. A lot of media outlets wouldn't have busted so bad if it weren't for the 24 hour Euro! Juno was just ok here IIRC.....right? I remember it being mildly annoying the whole time..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.