Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,509
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

January 28-30th Possible Nor'easter


Rjay
 Share

Recommended Posts

The GFS except for a hiccup run here and there has been very insistent for days that this slips wide right. The Euro on the other hand has flipped flopped some. The NAM is still out of range but I like it’s general idea. 
 

Overall confidence is lower than I would have expected it to be this time yesterday and the kicker coming through the lakes Friday morning is worrysome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shadowsintherain said:

Can't live or die on every single run. Is the energy associated onshore yet and fully in this model suite? 

True but it gets your attention when they all move in the same direction at the same time.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, the_other_guy said:

GFS has been solid with the fast flow

Don’t know why guys have been dismissing it… Especially given the year

Because we want to believe it's still possible, even if it is unlikely. I'm beginning to think these models are mostly useless more than a couple days in advance; they can tell you to keep an eye out, that's all. We never should put much stock in them too far out, but people do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GGEM was a step down from 0z but not a disaster I'd say from the city east. Looks like 3" in Central Park, 5-6" where I am to 8-10" over the forks using the 10-1 map. Even some minor snow NW of the city. 

UKMET while still lousy was much better at 12z than last night. Accumulating snow gets into the city, about 5" for me, amounts reach 12" for the forks. 

These actually match the GFS output pretty well. Definitely plausible if we delay the phase/keep the trough progressive and don't close off. But 50 mile adjustment NW from these would still be a very nice event for many of us and that's also definitely possible. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real problem on the GFS is that the flow is too progressive and it might be correct given the weak blocking.

This run of the 12z GFS closes off Southeast of Cape Cod.

I believe yesterdays 12z run closed off near the twin forks. About a 100 mile difference and why your surface low is so far East. That surface low is going to be to the NE side of that closed off ULL.

Western areas need about a 200 mile Westward shift to get into double digit snowfall while Long Island needs about a 100 mile West shift on the GFS.

The 12z GGEM is a complete disaster for everyone. Never closes off. Flow is way too progressive. Luckily it's a terrible model.

The 12z NAM closes off near the NJ coast in an almost perfect spot. I haven't seen the 06z Euro 500mb but I'm guessing it was similar.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'all keep doing this to yourselves time after time, year after year... There's a reason models can only give us an idea of what's to come more than about 3 days out. Until all of the factors are in a zone where they can be accurately sampled the data is insufficient to lead a more accurate solution. I see that they were flying off the west coast getting samples earlier and the result was nearly instant. Maybe someday we'll have a better way to get accurate data into the models sooner but until then all you're doing is making yourselves nut(tier).

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mitchel Volk said:

Except for the NAM the models have been very consistent with little 50mils shifts.  So at this time it is still really hard to pinpoint the storm effects over NYC.  We see who wins ECMWF or the others.

I believe the Northern stream wave that's going to eventually dig and phase is still located up near Alaska. Not in a great area in terms of sampling. I think we still have time for a significant shift but we're starting to run out of time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gravitylover said:

Y'all keep doing this to yourselves time after time, year after year... There's a reason models can only give us an idea of what's to come more than about 3 days out. Until all of the factors are in a zone where they can be accurately sampled the data is insufficient to lead a more accurate solution. I see that they were flying off the west coast getting samples earlier and the result was nearly instant. Maybe someday we'll have a better way to get accurate data into the models sooner but until then all you're doing is making yourselves nut(tier).

And even then there's room for error. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, gravitylover said:

Y'all keep doing this to yourselves time after time, year after year... There's a reason models can only give us an idea of what's to come more than about 3 days out. Until all of the factors are in a zone where they can be accurately sampled the data is insufficient to lead a more accurate solution. I see that they were flying off the west coast getting samples earlier and the result was nearly instant. Maybe someday we'll have a better way to get accurate data into the models sooner but until then all you're doing is making yourselves nut(tier).

Hey what do you mean by nut(tier)?  I resent that you included parentheses.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gravitylover said:

Y'all keep doing this to yourselves time after time, year after year... There's a reason models can only give us an idea of what's to come more than about 3 days out. Until all of the factors are in a zone where they can be accurately sampled the data is insufficient to lead a more accurate solution. I see that they were flying off the west coast getting samples earlier and the result was nearly instant. Maybe someday we'll have a better way to get accurate data into the models sooner but until then all you're doing is making yourselves nut(tier).

A lot of people forget that in general when it comes to snow for the I-95 corridor, the deck is stacked against us. Theirs a reason why seasonal snowfall averages are what they are. You need everything to come together perfectly and a major component to that is blocking. The fact that we're even looking at such a big storm in such a progressive pattern is amazing in itself. More or less relying in this case on the phase/energy being so explosive that it turns into a dynamic bomb.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, NJwx85 said:

I believe the Northern stream wave that's going to eventually dig and phase is still located up near Alaska. Not in a great area in terms of sampling. I think we still have time for a significant shift but we're starting to run out of time.

I heard there was dropsound sampling last evening in PAC.  I wonder where this information was ingested.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NJwx85 said:

I believe the Northern stream wave that's going to eventually dig and phase is still located up near Alaska. Not in a great area in terms of sampling. I think we still have time for a significant shift but we're starting to run out of time.

its moving south today through northwest Canada and is being sampled better

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

GGEM was a step down from 0z but not a disaster I'd say from the city east. Looks like 3" in Central Park, 5-6" where I am to 8-10" over the forks using the 10-1 map. Even some minor snow NW of the city. 

UKMET while still lousy was much better at 12z than last night. Accumulating snow gets into the city, about 5" for me, amounts reach 12" for the forks. 

These actually match the GFS output pretty well. Definitely plausible if we delay the phase/keep the trough progressive and don't close off. But 50 mile adjustment NW from these would still be a very nice event for many of us and that's also definitely possible. 

 

That's the thing here, it's all about the phase, and to nail that down is very hard. 

There is no blocking, it's all about the phase, a phase which can be off by 3-6 hrs or "on" by 3-6 hrs. This is well within the standard deviation (ie within the margin of error) of all models. It's why I'm not done with this and why the Euro may still be a better option.

Aloft it is very close, even with the models which miss. 

  • 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...