Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,133
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    SCseminole
    Newest Member
    SCseminole
    Joined

The Psuhoffman Storm


Ji
 Share

Recommended Posts

On the GFS? :huh:

The GFS is warm at 78 hrs with the zero line at the surface north of the Mason Dixon line. However by 84hrs when the evaporation cooling gets going and the low starts really deepening and turn the winds to northerly, the temps collapse. It remains a really tricky forecast. I doubt it is an all snow even but it could be a mostly snow event. Right now I'd still be very circumspect about making any calls about the system but then I tend to like to wait unless we have a feb 5th or Dec 19th type of event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"could be a mostly snow event."

Coming from you Wes, can't help but get my hopes up.

I was referring to the GFS.. I think the nam is less of a mostly snow even east of the city. Little changes in the track could change the profiles quite a bit. I do think we might get into the 40S on Tuesday which makes Wed tricky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the GFS? :huh:

i think it probably cools back for a decent portion of the precip here, but it's dicey. any closer and it could be too warm. there is like a very small zone of big opportunity it seems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the NWS is, understandably, very unconfident. But they do seem to be siding with a warmer solution. Seems like they have less faith in the GFS on this one but I can't be sure.

Just saw their updated forecast...they have trended a little cooler, with snow on front side, r/sn in middle and snow on backside. I will now shut up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my house (2 miles N of BWI) off GFS at 78, 81, and 84 hrs respectively (looks like all snow to me):

1001. 73. 1.3 -2.1 45.2 4.0

1000. 95. 1.1 -2.4 46.9 4.8

975. 298. -0.7 -3.4 50.6 6.2

950. 505. -1.5 -5.5 57.7 7.3

925. 717. -1.7 -6.0 65.3 6.8

900. 936. -0.9 -5.6 68.8 5.9

850. 1391. -1.9 -5.7 75.4 4.1

800. 1872. -3.2 -6.2 58.8 2.5

750. 2383. -3.4 -5.9 170.6 0.8

700. 2928. -4.1 -5.2 216.7 5.2

1000. 73. 0.0 -1.0 15.8 4.4

1000. 74. 0.2 -1.0 17.1 5.2

975. 276. -1.2 -2.5 26.9 8.1

950. 483. -2.2 -3.7 38.3 8.8

925. 695. -2.0 -4.2 47.8 8.1

900. 913. -1.3 -3.8 53.4 7.6

850. 1368. -2.1 -3.8 53.9 7.0

800. 1849. -3.1 -4.4 59.1 5.3

750. 2360. -3.5 -4.3 95.4 2.6

700. 2905. -4.6 -5.2 180.7 2.8

997. 73. -0.8 -1.4 5.9 5.3

975. 263. -1.7 -2.6 15.1 10.9

950. 469. -2.2 -3.6 23.1 12.8

925. 681. -1.2 -3.2 26.3 12.4

900. 900. -0.7 -3.1 27.2 11.7

850. 1356. -1.9 -3.6 26.3 11.0

800. 1838. -3.2 -4.7 24.5 9.3

750. 2348. -4.1 -5.2 29.1 5.6

700. 2891. -5.4 -5.9 60.3 1.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GFS is warm at 78 hrs with the zero line at the surface north of the Mason Dixon line. However by 84hrs when the evaporation cooling gets going and the low starts really deepening and turn the winds to northerly, the temps collapse. It remains a really tricky forecast. I doubt it is an all snow even but it could be a mostly snow event. Right now I'd still be very circumspect about making any calls about the system but then I tend to like to wait unless we have a feb 5th or Dec 19th type of event.

You err on the side of caution, Wes, which is perfectly understandable all things considered. I fully admit my lack of training and knowledge of forecasting, but just based on watching the models and reading all the discussion (especially among the mets here), it's obvious that this is an incredibly tumultuous situation. But basded on the models and discussion, I'm starting to think this is a mostly snow event for me in the near western DC suburbs, and very well could be for DC also. With the event slowing down, I'm feeling better about the "new" high building in and keeping us a little colder and keeping the low from coming too far west.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like there is fairly good agreement.

Good to hear. Of course, we're in a situation in which smal perturbations could bring us a less-than-ideal event, but the ensembles being in good agreement seems to show that the GFS is starting to "feel" that those possible perturbations are becoming less likely.

At least that's my rational - if uneducated - take on it.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...