Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    18,590
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    masonj4
    Newest Member
    masonj4
    Joined

January 24-26: Miracle or Mirage Thread 2

mappy

By mappy,
in Mid Atlantic

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

MillvilleWx
MillvilleWx

I know everyone loves the GFS, but currently it is not in-line with a majority of the guidance, so if I was on the desk, I’d be doing a forecast that was non-GFS based.  Current model diagnostic would

MillvilleWx
MillvilleWx

For clarity sake Data ingest is ONGOING and will be available for the 00z runs TONIGHT (00z 1/22) There has been NO RECON DATA FOR TODAY (1/21).    Thanks

psuhoffman
psuhoffman

I used the EPS to create this map using the 25% and 75% snowfall output 

Posted Images

Maestrobjwa

Maestrobjwa

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I was kicking this around when some of the 12z runs showed this trend...and now I am pretty sure... less amped is not necessarily what we want anymore.  Unless it goes full on GFS, the other less amp solutions are just ending up warmer and dryer because there is less intense WAA precip, which cools the column and holds off the advance of the WAA for a time.  So these slightly weaker solutions are actually worse...yea the track might be slightly better...but it fails to change the changeover time significantly and it just cuts down on the thump before we flip.  

Alright so tell me this...in the overall setup what is the problem? Not having any blocking so the HP doesn't stay in place? I woulda thought...sw off of Baja, wall of moisture coming right at us with deep cold in place would be simple. But why all these complications?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
psuhoffman

psuhoffman

Posted
Posted
Just now, Maestrobjwa said:

Alright so tell me this...in the overall setup what is the problem? Not having any blocking? I woulda thought...sw off of Baja, wall of moisture coming right at us with deep cold in place would be simple. But why all these complications?

The trough is amplifying way too far west of us 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TSSN+

TSSN+

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, psuhoffman said:

We got stuck in between on the NAM but it was closer to a GFS type solutions...it was a step in that direction...the problem is...if you end up in between an amped up wave that thumps us with WAA and the GFS idea we get screwed.  

The Nam can’t even get precip right 24hrs out and is scheduled to be retired not sure why we care what it says lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MN Transplant

MN Transplant

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Eskimo Joe said:

I know it's the NAM, but it's scored last minute events like this in previous times. There were several events in the 2013 - 2015 time frame where it picked up on some mid level warmth of subsidence that even the Euro didn't detect. To see the NAM and some other meso guidance trend lower/more disjointed is a bit of a red flag.

We are losing here because of synoptic-scale stuff, not hidden warm layers though.  The 850 low is even stronger and further NW than prior runs of almost all models, which just kills us. 

  • Like 4
  • yes 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Negnao

Negnao

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, LeesburgWx said:

I would laugh if we only ended up with 3-5”. The public meltdowns would be quite something .

Edit: and I would never spend this many hours and days following models again until only 2-3 days out

3-5 isn’t a bad outcome with a low that goes to Pittsburgh. 

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

WxUSAF

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

We got stuck in between on the NAM but it was closer to a GFS type solutions...it was a step in that direction...the problem is...if you end up in between an amped up wave that thumps us with WAA and the GFS idea we get screwed.  

We’re good at finding the worst of both worlds lol. Our historic specialty. 
 

No reason to still not just blend euro/eps/euroAI and call it a day. Wake me up for the Saturday 12z 3k NAM.

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

psuhoffman

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, TSSN+ said:

The Nam can’t even get precip right 24hrs out and is scheduled to be retired not sure why we care what it says lol. 

Yea but in this case what it did made sense...weaker wave initially, WAA runs out ahead of the main support, weaker...less Thump...GFS kind of has this...but its offset by a south enough second wave that we just snow for 24 hours... NAM we get the weaker initial thump but then flip anyways.  That is the in between screw solution.  And its not impossible...not likely...not with only the NAM showing it.   But I've seen this kind of thing before...remmeber yesterday when I said "the only way MD doens't get a warning level event is if this splits and the WAA wave runs out ahead and then the second wave cuts...this was that disaster scenario I had made up in my head.  

  • Like 2
  • 100% 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
baltosquid

baltosquid

Posted
Posted

I was taken away from my set by responsibilities. I am kinda glad I didn’t keep calling that weird ass run.

 

I am intrigued by moving to a more GFS solution if it trends more that way but yeah gambling on being stuck in the middle here…

Link to comment
Share on other sites
clskinsfan

clskinsfan

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Paleocene said:

NAM (sigh, why are we doing this to ourselves) trend with QPF is slower/lower today. And maybe a hair dryer, but that may just be because of the slower? This is only through 18z sunday, as far as can be compared over past 12 hours

namconus_apcpn_neus_fh72_trend (1).gif

We really don't want slower though. We need the precip to come while that confluence is still in the game. But I am not going to lose my shit over a NAM run. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TSSN+

TSSN+

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, psuhoffman said:

Yea but in this case what it did made sense...weaker wave initially, WAA runs out ahead of the main support, weaker...less Thump...GFS kind of has this...but its offset by a south enough second wave that we just snow for 24 hours... NAM we get the weaker initial thump but then flip anyways.  That is the in between screw solution.  And its not impossible...not likely...not with only the NAM showing it.   But I've seen this kind of thing before...remmeber yesterday when I said "the only way MD doens't get a warning level event is if this splits and the WAA wave runs out ahead and then the second wave cuts...this was that disaster scenario I had made up in my head.  

Next run Nam will double qpf because that’s what the Nam does model is trash. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnowenOutThere

SnowenOutThere

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

We got stuck in between on the NAM but it was closer to a GFS type solutions...it was a step in that direction...the problem is...if you end up in between an amped up wave that thumps us with WAA and the GFS idea we get screwed.  

2 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Yea but in this case what it did made sense...weaker wave initially, WAA runs out ahead of the main support, weaker...less Thump...GFS kind of has this...but its offset by a south enough second wave that we just snow for 24 hours... NAM we get the weaker initial thump but then flip anyways.  That is the in between screw solution.  And its not impossible...not likely...not with only the NAM showing it.   But I've seen this kind of thing before...remmeber yesterday when I said "the only way MD doens't get a warning level event is if this splits and the WAA wave runs out ahead and then the second wave cuts...this was that disaster scenario I had made up in my head.  

This is my worry as well. I think the bigger issue that just hasnt stopped going the wrong way for two days at this point is that we cannot for the life of us buy back any of the confluence we lost at the 0z Wednesday runs. If we are relying on solely a less developed wave without more confluence then we are subsequently relying on a far less powerful wave and hoping the GFS is fully right. I think that is what is so devastating to me from a what could've been perspective. If we had the confluence we were modeled to a couple days ago we wouldn't care too much about an overamped storm because it would've been a HECS before we flip. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
psuhoffman

psuhoffman

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TSSN+ said:

Next run Nam will double qpf because that’s what the Nam does model is trash. 

I'm not weary of this solution because the NAM shows it...I'm weary of it because I had already decided days ago that this was what the only fail path was...seeing it on anything isn't good...but yea if something is going to show it rather be the NAM over anything else.  Just saying...when I draw up my "please anything but that" solutions I don't want them showing up on anything.  Way way way too often the last 9 years my "this is what could possibly go wrong" FKNG musings are exactly what ended up happening.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
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
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...