Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,502
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Weathernoob335
    Newest Member
    Weathernoob335
    Joined

January 25-26 Threat


HoarfrostHubb
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Yeah ...anyway, I realize I've been mentioning 1992 in my own rites as of late, but my inclusion of that - for the record - was purely objective in that just at a 'superficial impression' it does bare resemblance.  Not sure how far to take that though. 

I don't know if this event will pull anything close to that... there were tides and coastal wind problems with 1992 that were making that a multi-facet impact, and adding to its historic profile.  etc..etc.. I think that was a spring tide too?  Don't quote but something helped elevate the seas - yes it may have just been longevity/long shore fetch lasting for 30 hours and maybe just a bigger ISE than usual that did it too.. 

Anyway, this system is lacking surface and critical thickness depth, baroclinic gradients ( different subject matter than geopotential height compression) .  We have amorphous frontal slopes and definitions and you really need that in the total cyclone genesis antecedence. 

We can make up for it by two ways - the way I see it.. The models could be too normalized as an error, and we end up with more low level thickness and thermal packing than is/was presently indicated...  The other way is more top down, and suppose there is a bigger correction than normal as this relays off the Pacific, and we end up with more mechanical forcing aloft and destablizing the column that way.  

If this thing looks like the the 00z guidance, tomorrow though, it's a forgettable probably and the boring idea has to be considered most probable.  The GFS ( am aware the 12z ..>) has been vacillating between that 'crush' look -vs- a more pallid light cold rain and paw blats on the windshield - so we'll see if this hold when that data gets on board. 

Syzgy tide 1992 12 foot plus, this weekend 10 feet 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Damage In Tolland said:

Look at the maps from Dec 92. Look at the valley snow totals and then look at the Hill totals on either side. I recall people saying the moon was visible in that in the valley while hills pounded 

Yes....low elevations to the E of the ORH hills did fine. Sure, it was 16-18" instead of 36-42", but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Low elevation can make out fine, as long as you don't have elevations to your north or east....and have sufficient latitude.

Biggest hills are to my West.  Do have some bigger hills about 20mi E of me.  I don't really care as long as it's not rain.  I'll take my 6" of baking powder while Hubby gets 20" of feathers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dendrite said:

Make sure you manually upload it and don't drag it or paste it in.

I've tried that....I usually manually upload it, but it just keeps a static image. Not sure why. I tried uploaing it to an imagehosting site just now and directly linking too but that didn't work either....though if you click on it now it will animate using that method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

Man what a putrid air mass in front of that thing.  If a fresh cP air mass was in place for that GFS run, good lord.

Yeah if we had an actual airmass, this would be pretty much locked in for big snows for a lot of the forum. 

But theres just enough with that polar high to make it work...just have less wiggle room and need more details to go right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah if we had an actual airmass, this would be pretty much locked in for big snows for a lot of the forum. 

But theres just enough with that polar high to make it work...just have less wiggle room and need more details to go right. 

I wish we had last weekend's air mass, this weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah if we had an actual airmass, this would be pretty much locked in for big snows for a lot of the forum. 

But theres just enough with that polar high to make it work...just have less wiggle room and need more details to go right. 

The good news for SNE is that the conveyor belts look pretty favorable for strong dynamic cooling in heavy precipitation rates.  As long as it doesn't occlude too early, you guys look to have a much better shot of it reaching it's peak intensity at the right time. 

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...