Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,507
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    SnowHabit
    Newest Member
    SnowHabit
    Joined

Nov 15/16 regionwide event


RUNNAWAYICEBERG
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, sbos_wx said:

We can drive the 495 belt in our snowpants 

I think it’s just a wee bit too warm, but like 1C cooler just off the deck would do it. Still, this is one of those where just inland could get snow. I don’t mean other side of CF but those areas just enough away from direct influence. Anyways still far out to get real cute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Very early it looks like a 2-4 or 3-6” event inland with extended icing that maybe ends as 33-34 dz. 

Hopefully thesecold trends continue .

Euro has been awful . Gfs killed it tonight’s storm and last weeks when Euro had wound up cutters when we said there were no cutters 

Very reasonable post, 2-4"/3-5" type deal interior SNE and even NNE.  The thing is hauling fast so may be hard for 6" or more anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

Very reasonable post, 2-4"/3-5" type deal interior SNE and even NNE.  The thing is hauling fast so may be hard for 6" or more anywhere.

Yeah it’s not a big un. Solid high end advisory.. mayyyybe low end warning if it looks like 6-8” could happen north of the Mass /VT border 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KoalaBeer said:

Could this be one of those exit 47 specials you guys were talking about last week with rain in Andover while its pounds snow here in Methuen? :lol:

Starting to look like the transition line could be further south than that. Still a decent amount of time though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LoveSN+ said:

Something is wrong with the FV3

The algorithm seems fine on this run...it’s just really damn cold. I’m not sure if the FV3 determines its own ptype or if TT has an algorithm in determining it, but if it’s the latter, he only seems to have the 2m and 850mb temp there. I think the model needs more “test”ing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dendrite said:

The algorithm seems fine on this run...it’s just really damn cold. I’m not sure if the FV3 determines its own ptype or if TT has an algorithm in determining it, but if it’s the latter, he only seems to have the 2m and 850mb temp there. I think the model needs more “test”ing.

I mean the FV3 is just pornographic. That H7 track. *drool* 

fv3p_midRH_neus_16.png

fv3p_z700_vort_neus_16.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dendrite said:

The algorithm seems fine on this run...it’s just really damn cold. I’m not sure if the FV3 determines its own ptype or if TT has an algorithm in determining it, but if it’s the latter, he only seems to have the 2m and 850mb temp there. I think the model needs more “test”ing.

Look down at South Carolina. The modeled reflectivity never spits out snow, but if you look at the actual snow accumulation field, there is >10 inches. Something is most definitely wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CT Rain said:

I mean the FV3 is just pornographic. That H7 track. *drool* 

fv3p_midRH_neus_16.png

Yeah...heck maybe it’s onto something. We’re still 3-4 days out. I saw those H4-H7 maps too...nice weenie look for those midlevel mesoscale features. I wish he had some kind of coarse mean omega overlayed on that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LoveSN+ said:

Look down at South Carolina. The modeled reflectivity never spits out snow, but if you look at the actual snow accumulation field, there is >10 inches. Something is most definitely wrong. 

Maybe, but it didn’t look too unreasonable given the temps, QPF, and dynamics for the interior up here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LoveSN+ said:

Look down at South Carolina. The modeled reflectivity never spits out snow, but if you look at the actual snow accumulation field, there is >10 inches. Something is most definitely wrong. 

Definitely garbage down there. I wonder if he’s applying the algorithm for 2m temps of 1C or higher or something rather than using the modeled ptype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dendrite said:

Definitely garbage down there. I wonder if he’s applying the algorithm for 2m temps of 1C or higher or something rather than using the modeled ptype.

It could be something with the microphysics scheme within the model itself as well. Not really sure what is going on. I do agree about your previous post though, i.e., this run is much more impressive than other guidance currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LoveSN+ said:

It could be something with the microphysics scheme within the model itself as well. Not really sure what is going on. I do agree about your previous post though, i.e., this run is much more impressive than other guidance currently.

850 is torched down there and the modeled ptype is rain/storms...but there’s strong surface CAD for awhile down there and there’s a good 6-12hrs of +RA and 2m temps of 33-34F in NW SC. That’s the best guess I have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Maybe, but it didn’t look too unreasonable given the temps, QPF, and dynamics for the interior up here.

Coastalwx and I were discussing it a few days ago... the snowfall maps are always mammoth on the FV3.  It had like 10 straight runs of 20"+ for the storm that happened last Friday night.  

I'll have to find the posts but Scooter definitely thought it was messed up then too.

It has definitely been running on the high side for snowfall the past month.  Or it just likes big solutions...either way it's the new GFS, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, powderfreak said:

Coastalwx and I were discussing it a few days ago... the snowfall maps are always mammoth on the FV3.  It had like 10 straight runs of 20"+ for the storm that happened last Friday night.  

It has definitely been running on the high side for snowfall the past month.  Or it just likes big solutions...either way it's the new GFS, right?

Read above...looks like a TT issue. They shouldn’t include anything above 0C at 2m in their snow accum algorithm. I think if your area is progged to stay snow in the column it’s fine. That will suck up here in 33F and rain events. It’s a clown map so they really shouldn’t be looked at anyway. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Read above...looks like a TT issue. They shouldn’t include anything above 0C at 2m in their snow accum algorithm. I think if your area is progged to stay snow in the column it’s fine. That will suck up here in 33F and rain events. It’s a clown map so they really shouldn’t be looked at anyway. lol

Ah yeah it was just producing some ridiculous totals that didn't even seem to match QPF earlier this week.  It was saying 10:1 but the QPF maps didn't even seem to line up on TT with these totals.

These are some sample runs from this week...

Guess the moral is take the FV3 maps with a grain of salt.

LODAm2n.png

ZHDI04u.png

vGXmgbr.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...