Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,526
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Gonzalo00
    Newest Member
    Gonzalo00
    Joined

JAN 20th-22nd potential..


NaoPos

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 983
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Likely overamplified, as is typical of the NAM in this range.

In this scenario it isn't. It has a ton of backing from SREF and they have been hinting at potential for extreme amplification and a very active eastern PAC ridge. GFS/ECM keep amplifying the northern stream diving south. We will see though--this NAM is not unrealistic though--good or bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can not believe people would be worried about surface temps at 84 hours out..however its not a torch either....

it's really more about track than simply surface temps. with that track, it would rain. not that the NAM track is necessarily correct, but with that track... rain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's really more about track than simply surface temps. with that track, it would rain. not that the NAM track is necessarily correct, but with that track... rain.

Gents! Just trying to inject some fun. I fully understand much can change for the better or worse for that matter. Such sensitive folks in here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it phases early like that, look out. Not saying it will happen, but it's a concern of mine. A solution like this in my opinion is considerably more likely than an OTS miss. Phasing this season has been as often and strong as possible. Without a blocking ridge north of us, there's nothing to stop it from becoming a nasty inland cutter if the phase is as strong and early as the NAM sees it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes i agree, buts its model analysis, thats what we are doing. Look at The mid levels they are torched, southerly wind. Allentown even changes over.

Well, lets see I have seen people talking about the ECM and how accurate the ECM is and how it really does not have a storm etc. I have seen people talking about the GGEM and how it over phases etc. Well now the NAM supports the GGEM with intensity etc but its the NAM and temps etc in the long range. Furthermore the GGEM which sometimes can have a warm bias at 12 Z has all basically snow...So i feel pretty comfortable when saying that I am not worried about what the NAM shows when the GGEM has Snowman.gif

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...