ORH_wxman Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Ok, now that I am looking at it, there is energy coming out of Manitoba that may spur redevelopment. Its not as clean and ideal as some of these other solutions we've seen, but its just another way that something can happen in this setup. The annoying part of this is how complex the whole setup is, but the great thing is we can snow in a variety of ways out of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Ugly run....all nuisance. Onto the GFS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaineJayhawk Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Ok, now that I am looking at it, there is energy coming out of Manitoba that may spur redevelopment. That's what I'm looking at as well. Just trying to pull a Ray here and learn more about H5. Pick up bits and pieces each run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weathafella Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 This looks like it would not be half bad after 84 hours... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Bob you are keying on the wrong SW, there is supposed to be a SW that shoots out early, you are now getting the idea. FWIW I think the NAM looks awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Torchey Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Im interested in that backside vorticity diving southeast over the midwest at hr84 on the nam, that could certainly dig enough to spawn cyclogenesis along the ec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weathafella Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Bob you are keying on the wrong SW, there is supposed to be. sW that shoots out early, you are now getting the idea. FWIW I think the NAM looks awesome. I"m not sure I'd choose the same descriptors.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Torchey Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I think the nam extrapolated might be showing two seperate events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I"m not sure I'd choose the same descriptors.... You have to put Ginx glasses on....as long as his heart is beating and the run shows a remote chance of a flake with 100 miles, all is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 This looks like it would not be half bad after 84 hours... Should we try to extrapolate the 84 hr nam............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaineJayhawk Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Should we try to extrapolate the 84 hr nam............. Isn't that what the DGEX is for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahk_webstah Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 This looks like it would not be half bad after 84 hours... Does that radar seem to show a low forming off the carolina coast? That would probably move due north given how the isobars look at 500 (am I fulla****e here?). Are we looking at a long duration snow beginning Thursday eve with inverted trough givng way to coastal storm Friday pm into Saturday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Its not as clean and ideal as some of these other solutions we've seen, but its just another way that something can happen in this setup. The annoying part of this is how complex the whole setup is, but the great thing is we can snow in a variety of ways out of this. I think the thing that was screwing me up was the initial piece of energy that scooted off the coast at 66h. That's not the piece to key in on. It's the energy diving out of Manitoba that pulls/draws the ULL out S of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Isn't that what the DGEX is for? Yeah but this would be more fun to see how close you would be........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Bob you are keying on the wrong SW, there is supposed to be a SW that shoots out early, you are now getting the idea. FWIW I think the NAM looks awesome. See my post above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropopause_Fold Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Its not as clean and ideal as some of these other solutions we've seen, but its just another way that something can happen in this setup. The annoying part of this is how complex the whole setup is, but the great thing is we can snow in a variety of ways out of this. Yeah ideally we'd just have the ULL remain north and eject one strong vm underneath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bostonseminole Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Ugly run....all nuisance. Onto the GFS... it only goes to 84hr.. on most runs the fun does not start to 100+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahk_webstah Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I'm trying to learn here...if I look at 500 at 84 I see a flow along the coast that would pull a low nne. If I look at the trend in isobaric flow from 66 to 84 it appears to go from postive tilt to neutral and perhaps about to be negative after 84. Am I interpreting this correctly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Yeah ideally we'd just have the ULL remain north and eject one strong vm underneath. Well the NAM at 84h suggests this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Ugly run....all nuisance. Onto the GFS... Not ugly at all Ray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 it only goes to 84hr.. on most runs the fun does not start to 100+ I understand that, but this run looks primed to deliver nothing more than a low end warning event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Not ugly at all Ray. If you want a HECS, it probably is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Not ugly at all Ray. I disagree......if Will or Phil want to tell me that looks primed to deliver 1'+ amounts down the road, then I'll defer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 If you want a HECS, it probably is. Thanks....or a MECS.....it would be close. 4-8 type deal imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 You have to put Ginx glasses on....as long as his heart is beating and the run shows a remote chance of a flake with 100 miles, all is good. Dude you said the same At 18 Z here is your GFS at 90 Vs Nam at 84 which gave you 30 inches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bostonseminole Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Thanks....or a MECS.....it would be close. 4-8 type deal imo. you could be right, the energy coming out of manitoba looks similar to the gfs to me.. so that has to be good.. but maybe is all to far north, who knows. GFS coming soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I disagree......if Will or Phil want to tell me that looks primed to deliver 1'+ amounts down the road, then I'll defer. If all your are looking for is HECS, than yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Thanks....or a MECS.....it would be close. 4-8 type deal imo. I wouldn't expect more than a 4-8 right now...its fairly uncommon to get 12"+ as it is, but in this setup, you need significant action going underneath us, and that will not be easy to get with a strong PV near the lakes...the blocking gives us a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 If you want a HECS, it probably is. I want snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dendrite Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I think the thing that was screwing me up was the initial piece of energy that scooted off the coast at 66h. That's not the piece to key in on. It's the energy diving out of Manitoba that pulls/draws the ULL out S of us. Extrapolating the NAM is bad for your health, but yeah, our hope with this run is delayed, but not denied. The weak lead s/w is still producing weak low pressure off of the coast and the H5 low is close enough to induce some inverted troughiness. The problem is the pv lobe that slung the vmax into SNE sorta takes over as the main pv and stalls. So we have hope for another lobe to swing around and in and/or that s/w diving in from the prairie provinces. I'm not going to pretend to know what the NAM will do though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.