Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,586
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

January 26-27 Snowstorm Disco III


Baroclinic Zone

Recommended Posts

I think it's pretty clear really. The nam is right when it's giving big snows even if it doesn't always make sense getting there. At 5h in previous storms it had issues but the end result track was very good.

When it isn't giving big snows something is clearly wrong with it. Especially when all the other models still are....the logic is infallible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think it's pretty clear really. The nam is right when it's giving big snows even if it doesn't always make sense getting there. At 5h in previous storms it had issues but the end result track was very good.

When it isn't giving big snows something is clearly wrong with it. Especially when all the other models still are....the logic is infallible.

stop shadow boxing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's pretty clear really. The nam is right when it's giving big snows even if it doesn't always make sense getting there. At 5h in previous storms it had issues but the end result track was very good.

When it isn't giving big snows something is clearly wrong with it. Especially when all the other models still are....the logic is infallible.

these aren't just track differences... synoptics on NAM differ from EURO and GFS at the surface... strung out double low structure vs. a more consolidated low, and this is probably related to it being a miss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its been a concern of mine since 0Z Sunday Euro's run. I don't have the critical thicknesses. I do see on SV the 540 thickness line has had a good deal of separation further north than the 0c 850 and 32F 2 m values. One time frame on the 0 Z Sunday Euro run the 540 line was north of the entire state of Massachusetts, while the 850 0 C line further south as well as the 32 F 2 meter temperature. If there's no sneaky warmth between 2 m and 850, its got to be warmer somewhere higher up to force the 1000-500 mb thickness values higher than 540 DM.

I have been thinking about this quite a bit. As this sounding shows from the NAM today , above 540 thickness still result in cold lower layers , just an example why 540 does not tell the whole story

4177f279-925d-52da.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's pretty clear really. The nam is right when it's giving big snows even if it doesn't always make sense getting there. At 5h in previous storms it had issues but the end result track was very good.

When it isn't giving big snows something is clearly wrong with it. Especially when all the other models still are....the logic is infallible.

The NAM has a strange look to it that Phil and others have pointed out. Nobody is calling it out because it does not give snow...who knows..it could be onto something, but when every piece of guidance doesn't agree and the fact that the solution seems strange, I don't see anything wrong with questioning it. Some of the models like the euro do have a bit of an elongated appearance to, but this happens at a further north latitude. The euro also makes sense synoptically by the placement of surface low pressure and the H5 vortmax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harvey I'm guessing?

if this is just inside the benchmark I'm willing to bet it's a big hit for Boston...it's a big system with a big precip shield. Any closer than that and Boston starts to have precip problems.

Barry....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm being serious. Clearly something is wrong with the nam.

Unless someone here thinks it's right?

The only time I remember people being ardent about the NAM being more right was for January 12th. Yes, it likely isn't right. I don't agree with the double energy scenario. The NAM does this on occasion and usually ends up incorrect. It also did the shortwave shred at the last minute for the past mini-snowstorm. It ended up being wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cantore just posted on facebook after record lows there is no block to keep the cold in, so it looks like a 1-4 inch RAIN storm for the I-95 corridor. I thought it was mix or snowstorm or possibly out to sea, what model is he referring to? Or that not including New England?

A number of the more experienced mets see this system being closer to the coast than is what's modeled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A number of the more experienced mets see this system being closer to the coast than is what's modeled.

Don't put me even in the same hemisphere as those mentioned professionals but I do think there is no way this goes SE of the benchmark. I think most of us here will be concerned with how close this gets to ACK and the not BM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only time I remember people being ardent about the NAM being more right was for January 12th. Yes, it likely isn't right. I don't agree with the double energy scenario. The NAM does this on occasion and usually ends up incorrect. It also did the shortwave shred at the last minute for the past mini-snowstorm. It ended up being wrong.

until the euro bends, given run after run of essentially the same output, it's hard to think the NAM will win the day.

what the nam is doing is pretty much the same as a lot of the srefs members/09z eta/rsm etc. they all develop a surface trough along the SE coast and then lower SLP off of hatteras and shoot an initial LP ENE before the main vortmax is in entirely in the picture. tough to say whether that hatteras low deserves to be there or not. all products seem to have a blow up of convection in that region but the ec/cmc just don't let it win out.

nam/srefs/gfs at times also just don't carry the vortmax nearly as far NE. ncep products have been doing this off/on now for a few days...shooting the vorticity sort of ENE off of the MA as opposed to rounding the bend and coming right up over the MA and new england.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A number of the more experienced mets see this system being closer to the coast than is what's modeled.

I'd agree with this from talking to some up and down the coast. There are two very distinct camps and has been all along. Most do not favor the middle needle track, some like Burbank think it's a grazer, others favor a hugger or even inland track. We are seeing this play out with models like the nam where the needle can't be thread and things shift. I half expect to see the rest of the suite shift around too. Very fickle timing.

As far as the mini vortices offshore, common nam problem but quite often it still ends up occurring to some extent where its not enough to have jumped the low but it does create a mother dryslot.

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...