Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,514
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    EWR757
    Newest Member
    EWR757
    Joined

Coastal Storm Potential - Jan 11-12 II


Baroclinic Zone

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Why does everyone always want to bash on the Connecticut River Valley, it's not like there are 2000' mountains on either side of it in Ct. Ryan if you could, is the Ct Valley really a screw zone more often than not or is this just a myth?

myth lol

It's been perpetuated the last few years by just some awfully unlucky storms for us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gfs givin the old b slap! loving it! nam solution was a little too amped for southern areas anyway... :)

Yeah appears so. I want to throw out again because I knwo the thread is flying...the RGEM and GFS are very similar through 48 in my opinion pending the better res/color RGEM maps.

The NAM just turns into a shi* show every run 36/42 hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does everyone always want to bash on the Connecticut River Valley, it's not like there are 2000' mountains on either side of it in Ct. Ryan if you could, is the Ct Valley really a screw zone more often than not or is this just a myth?

Agreed.

There are so many variables in the Valley. When you get up towards Greenfield/Turners Falls the topography is a lot tighter and not subject to the same dynamics as lets say Springfield.

According to the Greenfield DPW the 40 year average for annual snowfall here is 54". Hardly a screw zone.

It's convenient to blame the Valley but honestly most of SW NH and S. VT have their share of bad winters and that is certainly not due to any sort of Ct River Valley snow hole. Or is it? - lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GFS slaps the NAM down, as we thought; EURO to follow suite.

well i don't mind if the gfs slaps the nam but there is more room for a less amped less QPF System then us getting royally screwed via the nam moving more NW... so i don't want this to really move SE more than a hair.

0z nam looked damm fine to me. clown maps should give me 18

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well i don't mind if the gfs slaps the nam but there is more room for a less amped less QPF System then us getting royally screwed via the nam moving more NW... so i don't want this to really move SE more than a hair.

0z nam looked damm fine to me. clown maps should give me 18

We wouldn't get 18" if that soloution verified.....the mid level centers were too far west.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well i don't mind if the gfs slaps the nam but there is more room for a less amped less QPF System then us getting royally screwed via the nam moving more NW... so i don't want this to much further SE.

0z nam looked damm fine to me. clown maps should give me 18

I still think the NAM COULD be on to something, though there is a low chance, especially considering the pattern this winter thus far

that said, the slp position on the NAM would almost certainly involve a mix out to 495 (like fox25 is calling for now, with heaviest snow worcester on west)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...