Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,508
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Dano62
    Newest Member
    Dano62
    Joined

March 20th-22nd Suppressed, Fish, Not Coming Threat


Rjay

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, USCG RS said:
21 minutes ago, snow1 said:
And now we have lost the nam

As a side note... We should not be relying on snowfall maps (never tbh, but) for this scenario. What falls and what accumulates will be two very different scenarios.

Everything will accumulate with the cold temps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Lol you guys are gonna go crazy with the run to run shifts with wave 1. You have a shortwave getting shredded as it goes from west to east. With the confluence around there is going to be sharp cutoff. Its gonna take awhile before we know more or less where that cutoff is going to be. As SnowGoose mentioned before, upper end snowfall potential is very limited. The 12Z Euro Ensembles and 18Z Nam show the trailing energy has some good potential. Even the 12Z globals trended to having a better wave #2. Here is the 18Z Nam with wave 2 which sorta looks like the original idea the globals had for this timeframe.

namconus_z500_vort_eus_fh78-84.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone relying on the NAM>>> Please consider that the 12Z on the Cobb Snow Method is giving 25" of Snow, 17:1 Ratio and at one point has 4" in one hour.  BTW: the storm is still carrying on at hour 84--and all this happens in 12 hours+.   This is not a fantasy, it is a monster from another time and dimension.  

None of this could be right even on Feb. 01.   Watch for a crash dive shortly.

http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/~ckarsten/cobb/cobb.php?model=nam&site=klga

This method yielded nothing on the previous events and was consistent.   Do not know what is upsetting it now.   LOL>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, EastonSN+ said:

Now the models are coming in close to a consensus. Euro, GFS GGEM and now NAM are now in the general area of each other.

Consensus at 60 hr could also mean that they are all wrong. I get nervous with consensus when it's outside of 48 hr. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Enigma said:

Consensus at 60 hr could also mean that they are all wrong. I get nervous with consensus when it's outside of 48 hr. 

Yes. Just because they are consolidating does not mean the model suite will not move north in tandem. GEFS as north as was the EPS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Enigma said:

I would not want to be in JP right now. This is not 2010 type confluence. Climo says Phl to NYC JP.

Definitely not 2010 type confluence, but the shortwave itself is not too impressive itself. I do believe we will see the consensus adjust a bit north, but how much is the question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

focusing and hoping on the wrong wave imo....id prefer a sheared first wave, with the follow up

8 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

GFS trended worse.

every aspect of the bigger solution trended more favorable on the GFS and icon.... look at the ridge/heights/confluence/ and trough as well as second wave....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • BxEngine locked this topic
  • Rjay unlocked this topic
  • Rjay unpinned this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...