Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,918
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    simbasad2
    Newest Member
    simbasad2
    Joined

December 18-20 Potential Talking Points

earthlight

By earthlight,
in New York City Metro

Recommended Posts

SteveB

SteveB

Posted
Posted

Mike, we won't know how the downstream features react to the historic blocking until it retrogrades into Central Canada. We'll probably see a wide range of wild solutions until this thing gets closer. As several have mentioned, to get a SECS/MECS we'll have to thread the needle with this system. Last year worked out, we'll know in a few days how we'll fare with this system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Edge Weather

Edge Weather

Posted
Posted

Yes, just saw this. It was an interesting discussion.

  On 12/14/2010 at 2:20 PM, Patrick said:

HPC continues the threat, in moderation:

PRELIMINARY EXTENDED FORECAST DISCUSSION

NWS HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL PREDICTION CENTER CAMP SPRINGS MD

859 AM EST TUE DEC 14 2010

VALID 12Z SAT DEC 18 2010 - 12Z TUE DEC 21 2010

IN THE UPDATED PRELIM...NO MAJOR CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE SEA

LEVEL GRAPHICS. HOWEVER...FOR THE 500MB GRAPHICS...WE BLENDED IN

50% OF THE NEW ECENS ENSEMBLE MEAN WITH HPC PRELIM CONTINUITY.

REASON: WITH SUCH AN ANOMALOUS BLOCKING HIGH WORKING WESTWARD

ACROSS NRN CANADA...WE PREFER WEIGHTING THE DEEPER/COLDER PATTERN

OF THE ECENS MEAN AT LEAST AS MUCH AS THE GEFS MEAN BY THE

WEEKEND. HOWEVER...AS A DEEP LONGWAVE TROF ALONG THE E COAST GETS

RE-INVIGORATED....THE DETERMINISTIC GFS OVERTAKES THE ECMWF/ECENS

MEAN SUN AND BECOMES ONE OF THE STRONGER SOLUTIONS WITH THE

DEEPENING LOW OFF THE VA CAPES. THIS SOLUTION IS NOT OUT OF THE

QUESTION GIVEN THE DEPTH OF THE MEAN LONGWAVE TROF NEAR THE

ATLANTIC COAST. THE EARLY PRELIM DISCUSSION FOLLOWS BELOW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A-L-E-X

A-L-E-X

Posted
Posted

Good to here theyre not still dismissing it.

Wes says the possibility for a big snowstorm from DC TO NYC is about 25% and Don also mentioned its reasonable to assume the big cities will get a few inches.

I've always taken "few" to mean less than 6 but more than 2, but beggars cant be choosers lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stormlover74

Stormlover74

Posted
Posted

I think few is no more than 3". 4"+ is fairly significant

  On 12/14/2010 at 2:23 PM, A-L-E-X said:

Good to here theyre not still dismissing it.

Wes says the possibility for a big snowstorm from DC TO NYC is about 25% and Don also mentioned its reasonable to assume the big cities will get a few inches.

I've always taken "few" to mean less than 6 but more than 2, but beggars cant be choosers lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Patrick

Guest Patrick

Posted
Posted

Awhile back, Roger Smith made a compelling argument for a MW/GL cutter in the timeframe of the "OTS" storm we are watching for the upcoming weekend. check out the pinned thread in the main weather forum for the details, but with virtually all the mets spotting the potential in the pattern before it showed up on the models, and roger's argument for the cutter idea, one could make the case that a coastal hugger is still well within the realm of possibilities. Of course, it may be time to just accept the likelihood that this storm will either be sheared out or explode to our east, depending on tomorrow's runs.

Talking about potential, if (and it's a big if) we end up with a massive fish storm, one has to wonder what that does to the pattern as we head into January. We aren't in a typical Nina, so I can't say that we will have a typical Nina January. Assuming the blocking holds, we could be in for one of our top ten coldest January months.

  On 12/14/2010 at 2:23 PM, A-L-E-X said:

Good to here theyre not still dismissing it.

Wes says the possibility for a big snowstorm from DC TO NYC is about 25% and Don also mentioned its reasonable to assume the big cities will get a few inches.

I've always taken "few" to mean less than 6 but more than 2, but beggars cant be choosers lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gkrangers

gkrangers

Posted
Posted
  On 12/14/2010 at 2:30 PM, gkrangers said:

I want to comment on the 12z NAM, but feel unqualified to do so because I tend to forget everything about winter storms every summer and then relearn it every winter, and it is still rather early in the season.

Tho the NAM is fo sho more amplified with the energy in the southwest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A-L-E-X

A-L-E-X

Posted
Posted
  On 12/14/2010 at 2:29 PM, Patrick said:

Awhile back, Roger Smith made a compelling argument for a MW/GL cutter in the timeframe of the "OTS" storm we are watching for the upcoming weekend.  check out the pinned thread in the main weather forum for the details, but with virtually all the mets spotting the potential in the pattern before it showed up on the models, and roger's argument for the cutter idea, one could make the case that a coastal hugger is still well within the realm of possibilities.  Of course, it may be time to just accept the likelihood that this storm will either be sheared out or explode to our east, depending on tomorrow's runs.

Talking about potential, if (and it's a big if) we end up with a massive fish storm, one has to wonder what that does to the pattern as we head into January.  We aren't in a typical Nina, so I can't say that we will have a typical Nina January.  Assuming the blocking holds, we could be in for one of our top ten coldest January months.

Thats a good point-- if nothing else, this storm might just re energize the 50/50 and the -NAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A-L-E-X

A-L-E-X

Posted
Posted
  On 12/14/2010 at 2:52 PM, NorEaster27 said:

NAM looks better than 6z, however it really starts to warm us up at the end of the run....

Isnt the NAM really bad after 84 hrs though?  BTW does it warm us up during the storm?

If this storm is a big one, I can actually see it changing the pattern back to mild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Patrick

Guest Patrick

Posted
Posted

That huge vortex to our north argues against that kind of warming...

  On 12/14/2010 at 2:52 PM, NorEaster27 said:

NAM looks better than 6z, however it really starts to warm us up at the end of the run....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gkrangers

gkrangers

Posted
Posted

Comparing the 12z NAM and 6z GFS at 84 and 90.

Much more amplified with the energy over Texas on the NAM. Confluence over the northeast is significantly more relaxed on the NAM. The PV split has the lobe we need to phase in (right?) over northern WI, instead of centered over Lake Superior like the GFS. The NAM is better all around, I think, and if the GFS followed, would likely end up closer to the coast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stormlover74

Stormlover74

Posted
Posted

Well there's no one definition of course but if I hear several inches I think 3 to 6. Couple and few mean the same to me. But genernally speaking thats why I'm a numbers guy. I hate when forecasters are cryptic and say oh we might get a few inches....2, 4, 6? theres a big difference and that tells me they are hedging their bets.

  On 12/14/2010 at 2:34 PM, A-L-E-X said:

I may have interpreted things differently, but to me 2 is "couple" 3-5 is "few" and 6 or more is "several."

One is just one of course lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allsnow

Allsnow

Posted
Posted
  On 12/14/2010 at 2:53 PM, Patrick said:

That huge vortex to our north argues against that kind of warming...

Yeah Dt was saying with the PV up north it shouls not be that warm......for 84 hrs out the nam looks real good as what gkranger said.....84 hr nam so take it with a grain of salt

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A-L-E-X

A-L-E-X

Posted
Posted
  On 12/14/2010 at 2:55 PM, Plfdwxdude said:

Well there's no one definition of course but if I hear several inches I think 3 to 6. Couple and few mean the same to me. But genernally speaking thats why I'm a numbers guy. I hate when forecasters are cryptic and say oh we might get a few inches....2, 4, 6? theres a big difference and that tells me they are hedging their bets.

I agree-- "few" "several" etc are very ambiguous terms!  I like significant and major-- because that's a flag for a 6+ event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mahk_webstah

mahk_webstah

Posted
Posted
  On 12/14/2010 at 2:55 PM, Plfdwxdude said:

Well there's no one definition of course but if I hear several inches I think 3 to 6. Couple and few mean the same to me. But genernally speaking thats why I'm a numbers guy. I hate when forecasters are cryptic and say oh we might get a few inches....2, 4, 6? theres a big difference and that tells me they are hedging their bets.

I think it could be pretty hard to nail down a qpf forecast to .1 or .2 which translates to 1 or 2 inches of snow. If a forecaster says a few inches of snow I don't think he/she is really hedging. Would you say that if the forecast was for somewhere around 1/4 to 1/2 inch of rain? If a forecaster says a few inches of snow just assume more than 2 and less than 6.

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.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...