Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

January Storm Term Threat Discussions (Day 3 - Day 7)


WxUSAF
 Share

Recommended Posts

image.thumb.png.b2377e449085aaeae5f0a6b020bc1d36.pngIt is pretty good step towards the GFS.  Below is a comparison of 00Z 500h and the 12Z.  Note how much more ridging takes place ahead of the vort and associated trof and what has happened over Maine.  The latter has relaxed allowing more room for our approaching trough.  If it relaxes a tad more we might get development a little farther west and more precipitation.  There is that pesky impulse ahead of the trof,  if it were to minor out quicker that would also help. 

  • Like 19
  • Thanks 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, usedtobe said:

image.thumb.png.b2377e449085aaeae5f0a6b020bc1d36.pngIt is pretty good step towards the GFS.  Below is a comparison of 00Z 500h and the 12Z.  Note how much more ridging takes place ahead of the vort and associated trof and what has happened over Maine.  The latter has relaxed allowing more room for our approaching trough.  If it relaxes a tad more we might get development a little farther west and more precipitation.  There is that pesky impulse ahead of the trof,  if it were to minor out quicker that would also help. 

This is the post i was waiting for.   It’s gonna snow y’all. 

  • Like 10
  • Weenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

1 hour ago, Weather Will said:

WB Can snow maps 12Z v 0z, again going wrong direction.

0D1B9177-EFBC-49EB-A30A-085C4A2ABD37.png

2B3AE24A-4AEC-4710-A06E-EECD4AF47E75.png

If this adjust back south I wouldn't be surprised, but if it also did its usual NW jog inside 72 that wouldn't surprise me either. I think this whole setup is mainly predicated off of what strength and timing of confluence we'll have as the SW digs. Too much confluence and track is south but temp layers are better. Too little and we get ptype issues. Very tedious setup

43 minutes ago, MN Transplant said:

I know I’m late to this as we wait in the euro, but  that precip shield, that wind direction, that low location, the date, and then you drop that it is 37/36 at DCA.  Unreal.

22F93713-11CC-4476-90FC-5176CC9E2413.thumb.jpeg.5117f94f49967b9540d2ef5ccbcdae24.jpeg

I was thinking the same exact thing today. I guess its a combo of warming background state and the main driver this season (Nina) leading to PAC air intrusion to our cold source. That's my simpleton guess I suppose

11 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

The h5 track is perfect. And i would say it got half way to what we need wrt amplitude to get a nice snow event from this.  The h5 dives from Chicago through Ohio and across VA it just doesn’t close off in time for us. 
ACC5FBBA-5047-44B1-93A1-2EFD420D4912.gif.054851e011ec4246b71ef9606e877b66.gif

Doesn't that H5 track seem a little flat to you? I would think we'd want the base of that trough rounding a little quicker and titling negative a little earlier to allow for dynamics to take over given our moderate airmass. I know its a tight rope -- if it tilts negative too quickly we have track issues. But I feel like we need excellent dynamics to deal with our ptype issues. I fear if this is not geared up we all fail, vs. rain to dynamic rates with good back side ccb.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PivotPoint said:

 

 

If this adjust back south I wouldn't be surprised, but if it also did its usual NW jog inside 72 that wouldn't surprise me either. I think this whole setup is mainly predicated off of what strength and timing of confluence we'll have as the SW digs. Too much confluence and track is south but temp layers are better. Too little and we get ptype issues. Very tedious setup

I was thinking the same exact thing today. I guess its a combo of warming background state and the main driver this season (Nina) leading to PAC air intrusion to our cold source. That's my simpleton guess I suppose

Doesn't that H5 track seem a little flat to you? I would think we'd want the base of that trough rounding a little quicker and titling negative a little earlier to allow for dynamics to take over given our moderate airmass. I know its a tight rope -- if it tilts negative too quickly we have track issues. But I feel like we need excellent dynamics to deal with our ptype issues. I fear if this is not geared up we all fail, vs. rain to dynamic rates with good back side ccb.

Yes but compare it to previous runs it was getting there. I don’t think there is much chance it goes negative given the flow in the Atlantic but we need it to close off sooner. It happens a little too late this run but way way closer. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Yes but compare it to previous runs it was getting there. I don’t think there is much chance it goes negative given the flow in the Atlantic but we need it to close off sooner. It happens a little too late this run but way way closer. 

Hard not to be happy with that run. Way better than 00Z and trending the right way.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, PivotPoint said:

 

 

If this adjust back south I wouldn't be surprised, but if it also did its usual NW jog inside 72 that wouldn't surprise me either. I think this whole setup is mainly predicated off of what strength and timing of confluence we'll have as the SW digs. Too much confluence and track is south but temp layers are better. Too little and we get ptype issues. Very tedious setup

I was thinking the same exact thing today. I guess its a combo of warming background state and the main driver this season (Nina) leading to PAC air intrusion to our cold source. That's my simpleton guess I suppose

Doesn't that H5 track seem a little flat to you? I would think we'd want the base of that trough rounding a little quicker and titling negative a little earlier to allow for dynamics to take over given our moderate airmass. I know its a tight rope -- if it tilts negative too quickly we have track issues. But I feel like we need excellent dynamics to deal with our ptype issues. I fear if this is not geared up we all fail, vs. rain to dynamic rates with good back side ccb.

I agree. Seems too flat. Want it to dig and go negative and close off.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Got this from my forum and apologies if this has been posted

BLUF, use current model data with caution....

"All six weather balloon launch sites along the West Coast and northwest Mexico did not report data this morning, for various reasons. Thus, the major system that is going to affect the Midwest and Great Lakes on Sunday night into Tuesday has limited data for forecasters and models to work with.

Ugh. Use all morning and afternoon models with even more caution."

From Gilbert Sebenste

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Solution Man said:

 

 

Got this from my forum and apologies if this has been posted

BLUF, use current model data with caution....

"All six weather balloon launch sites along the West Coast and northwest Mexico did not report data this morning, for various reasons. Thus, the major system that is going to affect the Midwest and Great Lakes on Sunday night into Tuesday has limited data for forecasters and models to work with.

Ugh. Use all morning and afternoon models with even more caution."

From Gilbert Sebenste

So considering that does that mean the Euro/CMC has a better handle on things?  Or do all models use this data?  Curious 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Solution Man said:

Wish I could answer, but my logical mind says they would use same data points....but that’s me pontificating.

Makes sense but someone mentioned earlier Euro uses Chinese and Russian data that US models do not.  Everyday you learn something here. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s funny. Back on January 24, 2000 we had the surprise snowstorm—- it was supposed to be south—a fish storm. And it wasn’t until after 9:00 pm—-hours before the onslaught that the NWS issued the last minute warnings. This storm has neither the L or the coastal power, however, the waffling that it’s creating is reminiscent of that storm. There just seems to be similar intangibles (VA Beach, suppression, maybe 1-2–probably rain/freezing etc...). Shall be interesting. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hurricanegiants said:

It’s funny. Back on January 24, 2000 we had the surprise snowstorm—- it was supposed to be south—a fish storm. And it wasn’t until after 9:00 pm—-hours before the onslaught that the NWS issued the last minute warnings. This storm has neither the L or the coastal power, however, the waffling that it’s creating is reminiscent of that storm. There just seems to be similar intangibles (VA Beach, suppression, maybe 1-2–probably rain/freezing etc...). Shall be interesting. 

I don’t think that kind of event can happen again.  While everyone complains about the models I am not sure that kind of last minute change could happen.  Now from 12 inches to nada sure...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hurricanegiants said:

It’s funny. Back on January 24, 2000 we had the surprise snowstorm—- it was supposed to be south—a fish storm. And it wasn’t until after 9:00 pm—-hours before the onslaught that the NWS issued the last minute warnings. This storm has neither the L or the coastal power, however, the waffling that it’s creating is reminiscent of that storm. There just seems to be similar intangibles (VA Beach, suppression, maybe 1-2–probably rain/freezing etc...). Shall be interesting. 

blizzard of 66 was the very same way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Solution Man said:

 

 

Got this from my forum and apologies if this has been posted

BLUF, use current model data with caution....

"All six weather balloon launch sites along the West Coast and northwest Mexico did not report data this morning, for various reasons. Thus, the major system that is going to affect the Midwest and Great Lakes on Sunday night into Tuesday has limited data for forecasters and models to work with.

Ugh. Use all morning and afternoon models with even more caution."

From Gilbert Sebenste

So it doesn’t have all that much effect on the threat window that’s 5-6 days away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mattie g said:

So it doesn’t have all that much effect on the threat window that’s 5-6 days away.

Just passing it on, as it does affect my area in the central plains within a 2 day threat. I am a transplant from the mid Atlantic forum, and my heart is always with this forum. I pass relevant info.

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think recent verification scores (per source, woj) have the 12z gfs at day 5 behind the JMA FYI. Sad. Once again doesn’t mean the gfs is wrong. I like how it’s trending for you guys, up here in Philly best chance is for the ULL to spit out some flakes, but I’m rooting for you guys cause I’d gladly chase a strong coastal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wentzadelphia said:

I think recent verification scores (per source, woj) have the 12z gfs behind the JMA FYI. Sad. Once again doesn’t mean the gfs is wrong. I like how it’s trending for you guys, up here in Philly best chance is for the ULL to spit out some flakes, but I’m rooting for you guys cause I’d gladly chase a strong coastal.

adrian woj does weather model verifications too?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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