Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,512
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    12bet1 net
    Newest Member
    12bet1 net
    Joined

NYC/PHL Jan 11-14 Threat Potential Part 3


am19psu

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 594
  • Created
  • Last Reply

These bands are always the wild card in dynamic systems like this, and numerous times the models smooth the QPF too much without maxing the areas with the heaviest bands enough. I was supposed to get more snow from most models on 12/26, but parts of eastern NJ beat me by up to 10" from the dynamic band that sat overhead. Same for 2/12/06 (although I wasn't here at the time).

When the low isn't bombing and it's mostly just overrunning, the banding signatures aren't as prevalent and it's more of a widespread mod-heavy snow that isn't as heavy as the bands present in a bombing low, but also without the mins surrounding the band. The models are coming closer to making it a dynamic system here and are moving away from a heavier overrunning storm that doesn't develop the banding until New England. The question is the track of the coastal and how much influence the primary holds. Again, we should get an idea soon, hopefully by 12z and the eastern models come back west to an extent. The NAM is likely overdone to be sure and is hard to trust given its wildly changing solutions yesterday. I just can't see the low crossing E LI and there being such a ridiculous band the way the NAM has it for so long. Verbatim we would rival 12/26's amounts for some of us and with such a fast moving low, it seems unlikely. But the available energy and also baroclinicity is definitely a possible reason to believe the globals are too flat and resolving something incorrectly. I think the "blended" solution, or a slightly west version of most globals sounds like the best way to go now. The models certainly blew their collective top very quickly when the Gulf energy and heat was taken into account and went from a suppressed nothing to a monster in a matter of 2 runs.

JM, I think the idea of a somewhat slower moving coastal is still on the table-- maybe 18 hours instead of 24 which is what we had with the last one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking maybe a slightly more wrapped up solution than the GFS, maybe about what the Euro has now. Something just seems "off" to me with these weak models like the GGEM and maybe GFS in keeping it so flat despite the strong upper air support, and I think they have some catchup left. But that's still nothing like the ridiculously amped NAM from 0z.

A good range may be 6-12 for most of the area, maybe 8-14 out on Long Island. Still a borderline major snow event and definitely an awesome birthday gift from Mother Nature (my birthday is on Wednesday, should be another long day shoveling!!). :snowman:

With how pissed off your mom was after the last snowfall, I bet she'll give you a shovel (or two) for a birthday present lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The off hour NAM runs the last few years have been frequently putrid, it had a horrific 06Z run with yesterday's storm where it missed S NJ and E LI entirely with the snow only 12-18 hours out....both places got 4-7 inches in the end...I used to sort of put some faith in the NAM's 06 and 18 runs but now only the GFS ones do I really look at much.

Yeah I remember you said it was the most inconsistent model this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MM5 certainly isn't in its go-to range currently but it shows very heavy snow across E NJ on east at that time, and would likely result in massive snow accumulations in later panels. No mixing either even at Montauk or down in S NJ.

MM5 sort of looks like Feb 10,2010-- the low is about in the same position when that bombed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, cause it shifted towards the gfs with the less amplified northern stream and the surface moving east..and plus like snowgoose said 6z and 18z of the nam runs have been less than stellar..if i had to make a guess id say the nam at 12z will go a little further east

Not even close to the GFS

NAM same time

However very close to its prior run

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If today was JAN 10 1991 and the models showed this solution for us,we would all be screaming and jumping for joy at the possibility of a 6-10 inch storm.With all of the big storms in the past 13 months though,it seems like some are acting like it is FEB 1989.We are going to get snow and a good amount of it,but nothing like we saw 2 weeks ago.Be happy and appreciate what you get.Some people here are going to get there 6th 10+ inch storm since MARCH 2009.To think it was 10 years and 1 month between such storms (FEB 1983/MARCH 1993)and to be in the pattern we are currently in and yet people still complain does not make sense.The fact that we have a robust NINA and we are getting these storms is like winning the powerball and the megamillions in the same week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If today was JAN 10 1991 and the models showed this solution for us,we would all be screaming and jumping for joy at the possibility of a 6-10 inch storm.With all of the big storms in the past 13 months though,it seems like some are acting like it is FEB 1989.We are going to get snow and a good amount of it,but nothing like we saw 2 weeks ago.Be happy and appreciate what you get.Some people here are going to get there 6th 10+ inch storm since MARCH 2009.To think it was 10 years and 1 month between such storms (FEB 1983/MARCH 1993)and to be in the pattern we are currently in and yet people still complain does not make sense.The fact that we have a robust NINA and we are getting these storms is like winning the powerball and the megamillions in the same week.

The funny thing is with all these storms the past two seasons, we have yet to have a 6-9 inch storm-- every one of them has been either 5 inches or less or 10 inches or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If today was JAN 10 1991 and the models showed this solution for us,we would all be screaming and jumping for joy at the possibility of a 6-10 inch storm.With all of the big storms in the past 13 months though,it seems like some are acting like it is FEB 1989.We are going to get snow and a good amount of it,but nothing like we saw 2 weeks ago.Be happy and appreciate what you get.Some people here are going to get there 6th 10+ inch storm since MARCH 2009.To think it was 10 years and 1 month between such storms (FEB 1983/MARCH 1993)and to be in the pattern we are currently in and yet people still complain does not make sense.The fact that we have a robust NINA and we are getting these storms is like winning the powerball and the megamillions in the same week.

1/11/91 was a severe short term bust...the 6-12 forecast turned into 3-5 with sleet and then rain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing is with all these storms the past two seasons, we have yet to have a 6-9 inch storm-- every one of them has been either 5 inches or less or 10 inches or more.

lol thats why when ppl in this thread see 8 inches its a fail, cause 8 inches is like the new 2 inches around here after last winter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1/11/91 was a severe short term bust...the 6-12 forecast turned into 3-5 with sleet and then rain

SG, I wonder if we had so many busts back then going the wrong way (that is, from snow to rain or snow to whiff) because of the opposite reason the models are having them now-- that is, now the models are having problems with the severe nature of the block, and back then maybe it was the amazingly positive nao they had troubles with.

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...