Jump to content

high risk

Meteorologist
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,802

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by high risk

  1. high risk
    It could certainly be overdone, but it's not on an island with the general concept.
  2. high risk
    18z NAM nest simulated radar for the DC-Baltimore corridor looks glorious, but the precip amounts....meh. That said, it certainly seems that some of the localized bands will over perform and perhaps in a big way (and this won't be well captured by guidance), so at this point, I'm happy to see a lot of simulated reflectivity over this area.
  3. high risk
    This caught my eye too. This would be a line of heavy snow squalls that caused a disaster on the roads as temps plummeted behind it. Something like this happened here a few years ago on Valentine's Day 2015.
  4. high risk
    This thread has gone to hell, but the GFS para puts the brakes on the Baltimore snow party. It still wants to bring some accumulating snow to most of central MD and hits the MD/PA border nicely, but it's not doing what the ops GFS is. Looking closely, the GFS precip field is wacky with a big max on the Jersey Shore and reduced totals for the NYC metro area- GFS para looks more reasonable and consistent.
  5. high risk
    00z GFS is trying to sucker me back in.....
  6. high risk
    .... although it has a nice band going through Baltimore early Tuesday
  7. high risk
    It's heavier during the 00-03z or so window this evening - could be a sneaky period of moderate snow (or sleet, per the NAM nest) here before a change to light sleet or rain.
  8. high risk
    I'm looking at the 24h QPF totals between 12z Monday and 12z Tuesday. GFS para looks considerably drier to me.
  9. high risk
    Yeah, I didn't explain myself well, but I was referring to tomorrow - big differences in rates for Howard County.
  10. high risk
    I was very pleased with the GFS too, but the GFS para has the same general shape of the QPF field but cuts down the amounts between DC and the MD/PA by at least 1/2.
  11. high risk
    Might be talking about the GFS parallel which is definitely not feeling the love for the District.
  12. high risk
    I liked the 850 wind axis a good deal more in the nest, and there is more precip later Monday in our area than in the parent, but there is certainly no argument that even this run didn't get it done for our area.
  13. high risk
    NAM nest at the end of its run looks notably better than the parent.
  14. high risk
    Mother of Mercy, RGEM!
  15. high risk
    Fairly good agreement (Euro, Canadian, Both GFS, NAM) of a Philly-NYC jackpot
  16. high risk
    except that if we fail on the CCB, 6-8" for areas north of DC probably isn't the default option. 3-5" seems more reasonable, and that could legitimately fall to 2-4" (see NAM nest).
  17. high risk
    Correct. Everyone laughed back in December when the NAM was the first model to show that storm coming much further west and ruining chances for heavy snow along the I-95 corridor. That doesn't at all mean that it's correct now, but to completely dismiss it at this stage comes with risk.
  18. high risk
    Most of the source of spread in the ensembles (SREF and HREF not included) comes from tweaks to the initial state, and one must go further into the forecast period before those tweaks start to manifest themselves as significant spread in the outcomes. If we forced spread to develop much faster in the forecast, it's likely that the spread in the longer ranges would be unusably large.
  19. high risk
    Still a bit too far north with its maximum love (for us Howard County folks), but each of the last 4 cycles has see the GFS para shift southward with the location of its max. Just need one or two more....
  20. high risk
    It's a legit question, but it seems to be more of a function of the GFS PBL scheme, as the model has had these issues for a long time.
  21. high risk
    Yeah, don't overlook this. NAM nest was notably drier than the parent. PWs seemed quite a bit lower over the source region for the moisture - not sure if it's correct, but I don't recommend completely dismissing it either.
  22. high risk
    Not really relevant to totals, but the NAM and especially the NAM nest like the idea of a lead band around sunrise Sunday followed by a break before the primary swath of warm advection snow arrives.
  23. high risk
    It has sufficient resolution; it just sucks at it.
  24. high risk
    GFS has what appears to be (IMHO) a very poor representation of the cold air damming at 12z Sunday.
  25. high risk
    Perhaps slightly, but bigger changes in the low-level temperatures are more likely if the background synoptic solution changes. Of course, you're right that as we get closer to the valid time, it's even better to use the 3 km NAM nest.
×
×
  • Create New...