Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,793
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    manaja
    Newest Member
    manaja
    Joined

Jan 21 event


Ian

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 719
  • Created
  • Last Reply

well, the SW was just off shore at 0Z

(you happy Ian?)

its way on its own with qpf and it's swinging wildly there at least.. so yeah. gotta side with the ggem over the nam for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL -- look in MD... 0.25-0.50 QPF... WSW ice citeria for them this run

The last "real" ice storm in the area (2/12-13/08) had liquid equivalents of 0.75-1.5" across the area for a max of about 0.5" of ice thickness. 1/14-15/99 was about 1" liquid equivalent too. Those are major ice storms.. last year's was not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont trust it at all...It just swung wildly in 6 hrs.....I realize it has better resolution and may handle certain features better, but I would definitely lean toward the Euro/GFS until we see them change

I generally agree with this. But I usually can tell the NAM is catching on when it stops putting an exaggerated rain shadow over my area, which it always does hrs 24-60. I'm sure the QPF is overdone, but I'd still lean toward it when its coming into line with other models on its precip fields, and hope it has the temp profile more correct since it should be a good short-range model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last "real" ice storm in the area (2/12-13/08) had liquid equivalents of 0.75-1.5" across the area for a max of about 0.5" of ice thickness. 1/14-15/99 was about 1" liquid equivalent too. Those are major ice storms.. last year's was not.

yeah that's a good point.. it won't all accrete even if that lvl qpf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...