Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

November Discussion


40/70 Benchmark
 Share

Recommended Posts

Speaking of the Euro... D10 from 00z c/o Pivotal Weather

It's a little interesting ( if not unsettling ) when the 850 mb, stereographic layout of the northern Hemisphere is this off-balanced/biased. 

image.png.8b3eded00dcbd56742643dde300f685c.png

There is no question that the weight or the warm tones, is more so than the cool tones.  And, it seems evenly distributed, too...  It's not like all the warmth is on one side, the cooler regions...the other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CoastalWx said:

Even EPS was showing it. Granted ensembles are a product of many members with misses and hits. 

I have always felt the ensembles do not have nearly enough variability or at least that they could be improved as far as representing the various outcomes possible for most looks . Would like a second set of ensembles that are a bit more “tweaked” from OP 

Like often ..the op shifts significantly and the EPS follows suit 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

I have always felt the ensembles do not have nearly enough variability or at least that they could be improved as far as representing the various outcomes possible for most looks . Would like a second set of ensembles that are a bit more “tweaked” from OP 

Like often ..the op shifts significantly and the EPS follows suit 

The mean was sort of offshore despite showing QPF. I typically look for trends in the ensembles and also those that show the actual locations of low pressure from each member. I certainly can recall some differences in solutions from op runs vs EPS.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DavisStraight said:

Looking at radar and models I think you're right.

I bet its legit to be honest.  Models have 12-24" of QPF in that area over the next 72 hours.  You're taking ocean moisture and slamming it into 10,000ft of prominence and wringing out 20" of water in single digit temps up there.

Those places can get 1,000+ inches per season it's estimated but no one really knows.  Wish we had a high-res NAM aimed on those peaks, the resolution would probably resolve some incredible QPF amounts.

gfs_apcpn_ak_12.thumb.png.44bfb0c480ceba4f0f8cf8acc0970ca9.png

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

I bet its legit to be honest.  Models have 12-24" of QPF in that area over the next 72 hours.  You're taking ocean moisture and slamming it into 10,000ft of prominence and wringing out 20" of water in single digit temps up there.

Those places can get 1,000+ inches per season it's estimated but no one really knows.  Wish we had a high-res NAM aimed on those peaks, the resolution would probably resolve some incredible QPF amounts.

gfs_apcpn_ak_12.thumb.png.44bfb0c480ceba4f0f8cf8acc0970ca9.png

I may have to visit one year, looks like nice accommodations and a decent menu.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

I bet its legit to be honest.  Models have 12-24" of QPF in that area over the next 72 hours.  You're taking ocean and slamming it into 10,000ft of prominence and wringing out 20" of water in single digit temps up there.

Those places can get 1,000+ inches per season it's estimated but no one really knows.

gfs_apcpn_ak_12.thumb.png.44bfb0c480ceba4f0f8cf8acc0970ca9.png

Yeah that is a smoking. 36-72" in 12 hours easily, 100" 12 hours is doable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PhineasC said:

That much liquid falling from the sky so fast I just figure would set off some kind compressional warming deal or similar and turn it to slush or rain. 

Usually it’s the opposite… you get colder and snow levels drop the harder it precipitates, then rise when it lightens up.

It is hard to process for sure that much water falling as snow in such a short period of time.  But I’ve heard even at sea level there in Valdez, AK they can get snow rates of a foot per hour in cold storms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess no one lives there. 

2 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

Usually it’s the opposite… you get colder and snow levels drop the harder it precipitates, then rise when it lightens up.

It is hard to process for sure that much water falling as snow in such a short period of time.  But I’ve heard even at sea level there in Valdez, AK they can get snow rates of a foot per hour in cold storms.

It’s like a foot of liquid overnight though. Seems hard to fathom with single digit temps. How does the temp even stay that low with that much warm pacific air being tossed in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

I guess no one lives there. 

It’s like a foot of liquid overnight though. Seems hard to fathom with single digit temps. How does the temp even stay that low with that much warm pacific air being tossed in?

Yeah even down at sea level they average (!) 326" in Valdez.  If you average that much heavy wet snow at sea level, what happens at 10,000ft must be nuts.

Can't imagine living in a place where you can get 15" in 90 minutes lol.

The winter storm has brought extreme snowfall — 15 inches fell in 90 minutes in Valdez — made travel hazardous south of the Alaska Range.

5a2854d273648.image.jpg

roofsnow.jpg

Normal suburban home but there has to be 6 feet of mushroom caps on the roof.

c794dbf166da05ef2c39ccdff0c857b2.jpg

 

 

  • Like 4
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...