mitchnick Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 I don't dislike how the Nam looks at the end of the run. Just sayin'. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nj2va Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 3 minutes ago, mitchnick said: I don't dislike how the Nam looks at the end of the run. Just sayin'. Gettin’ diggy with it 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeesburgWx Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 NAM @ 84 hours better or worse than ICON at any hour?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 1 minute ago, LeesburgWx said: NAM @ 84 hours better or worse than ICON at any hour?? Of course it's sketchy at best, but it's better than showing something crappy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowenOutThere Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 4 minutes ago, LeesburgWx said: NAM @ 84 hours better or worse than ICON at any hour?? The fact we are comparing the hour 84 NAM to Icon really makes me think we’re insane 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Pimpernel Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Just now, SnowenOutThere said: The fact we are comparing the hour 84 NAM to Icon really makes me think we’re insane It took THAT for you to realize we're insane?? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 On a related note, I don’t know who these people are, but it just showed up on my YouTube feed. Haven't even listened to it, but the title alone gives me joy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtracker Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 12 minutes ago, mitchnick said: I don't dislike how the Nam looks at the end of the run. Just sayin'. It must be decent because Chuck didn’t post it 1 15 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 2 minutes ago, SnowenOutThere said: The fact we are comparing the hour 84 NAM to Icon really makes me think we’re insane You do know the line between sane and insane is fine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjammin Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 The ratio of time and energy spent to enjoyment for this hobby must be one of the worst available. 1 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imgoinhungry Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 What is the over/under on the amount of digital snow DC metro loses per season? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dailylurker Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 2 minutes ago, benjammin said: The ratio of time and energy spent to enjoyment for this hobby must be one of the worst available. Hobby? Who would choose this as a hobby? This is a mental illness that most of us were born with lol 5 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baltosquid Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 RGEM obviously wouldn't work out but it did trend to the NS diving down more SW. Can't believe we're already at "extrapolate the mesoscales" for this lol.\ Edit: Also the RRFS A digs more thru 64hrs. But my read on that model so far is... not good? Am I imagining that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Pimpernel Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 14 minutes ago, mitchnick said: You do know the line between sane and insane is fine. 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraff Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 My contribution for today. Not many changes at hr 30 on the 12z GFS. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baltosquid Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 DESI has the HGEFS which if I remember correctly is NOAA's ensemble that includes both AI and deterministic members. Made an entirely too official looking graphic using the interface. Really puts it nicely: The temps at the surface should work with the kind of h5 pass we see at the moment. There is a coastal signal on the MSLP mean. But the precipitation is just so weak. For this, the best 6hr frame of precip, and a likely cooperative temperature profile, just a 1 in 3 chance of getting >0.1in or >1 inch of snow assuming 10:1 which may well be an overshoot if we lose some to changeover. Need moisture!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bncho Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 I mean, I don't know what h5 we need at this point, but it looks like so far 12z is an improvement from the last three GFS runs, at hour 75 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solution Man Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Just now, bncho said: I mean, I don't know what h5 we need at this point, but it looks like 12z is an improvement from the last three GFS runs. It is, but who knows what happens 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baltosquid Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 1 minute ago, bncho said: I mean, I don't know what h5 we need at this point, but it looks like so far 12z is an improvement from the last three GFS runs, at hour 75 Diving a smidge more and higher heights in front. Also the energy just north of Maine in this run was more around the NY/NH/Canada border, so hopefully more room to operate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtracker Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Haven't checked the 6z.but GFS trofs seems a lil too positively tilted so far 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtracker Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Snowing at 102 then sfc fz crashing and snow for most at 105. Light tho 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 2 minutes ago, stormtracker said: Haven't checked the 6z.but GFS trofs seems a lil too positively tilted so far There just isnt ample wave spacing to allow this to go negative at the longitude we need. Eta: for the former MECS solutions anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bncho Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 It's a better run than the last 3 GFS runs 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solution Man Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Just now, Ralph Wiggum said: There just isnt ample wave spacing to allow this to go negative at the longitude we need. Much better than 06z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bncho Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 1 minute ago, Solution Man said: Much better than 06z Better, yes. Ideal, nope. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtracker Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Just now, Ralph Wiggum said: There just isnt ample wave spacing to allow this to go negative at the longitude we need. Eta: for the former MECS solutions anyway Yeah, it looks pretty progressive. but it's a decent small hit like 3 to 5 ish 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bncho Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 DC gets to 6" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtracker Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Just now, Ralph Wiggum said: Better, yes. Ideal, nope. It's a nice lil event 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bncho Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 DC jackzone 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts