mitchnick Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 yeah it does fit into the narrative of the euro bias...unfortunately that doesn't mean its incorrect. it does if you're a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 OK, I'll say it first it's hard to believe we're only going to get .1-.2" out of this http://beta.intellic...ue&animate=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 OK, I'll say it first it's hard to believe we're only going to get .1-.2" out of this http://beta.intellic...ue&animate=true you do know that's like saying you're going to go with the NHC extrapolation over all available hurricane guidance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 In that case don't ever ban WinterWxLuvr.. i hate cats I'm sure you'll be able to find posts where I did that. Oh, after you learn to read, that is. But thanks for another wonderful contribution to the discussion. Hope your PMS ends well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 you do know that's like saying you're going to go with the NHC extrapolation over all available hurricane guidance. of course, I was just fooking around because somebody always says the radar looks more than the models predict Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riptide Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 you do know that's like saying you're going to go with the NHC extrapolation over all available hurricane guidance. We must extrapolate further by examining the NAM simulated radar. Looks like a pretty good match. http://mag.ncep.noaa...6_sim_radar.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 JMA backed down on qpf by almost 1/2 from 0Z .25"+ now and it's a tick warmer fwiw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 OK, I'll say it first it's hard to believe we're only going to get .1-.2" out of this http://beta.intellic...ue&animate=true Classic DC split setting up already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 JMA backed down on qpf by almost 1/2 from 0Z .25"+ now and it's a tick warmer fwiw What about the CRAS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 JMA backed down on qpf by almost 1/2 from 0Z .25"+ now and it's a tick warmer fwiw support from our friend http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/cras/cras45_NA/12/images/cras45na_pcp_036m.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 What about the CRAS? hey, it's a JI thread I had to post it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillzPirate Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 support from our friend http://cimss.ssec.wi...na_pcp_036m.gif ol' Mrs. Cras is a warm one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmlwx Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Classic DC split setting up already So I wasn't the only one that saw it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Chill Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Figures after I post that qpf will probably not back down from where we are now it's doing just that. I guess it's my fault. I'm a good guy so only throw small rocks please. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Figures after I post that qpf will probably not back down from where we are now it's doing just that. I guess it's my fault. I'm a good guy so only throw small rocks please. lol It is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Figures after I post that qpf will probably not back down from where we are now it's doing just that. I guess it's my fault. I'm a good guy so only throw small rocks please. lol Lots of banking on a near perfect phase. I guess that's to be expected at this point in our craptastic winter. I'd lean toward lighter totals still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catoctin wx Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Forecast out of the Millersville Wx Center http://snowball.mill...ooks/latest.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Forecast out of the Millersville Wx Center http://snowball.mill...ooks/latest.jpg in this winter, 48 hrs out, anyone's guess is as good as another Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Forecast out of the Millersville Wx Center http://snowball.mill...ooks/latest.jpg They need some Accuwx hype graphics to make the storm name seem more scary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Either way, the nrn edge of the snow shield should have a relatively "decent" band of precip moving across the area, and then pushing off to the se. That's where the best mid level frontogenesis and deformation will be. Tough to say where it sets up, but where ever this does end up developing, I could see this as a band of enhanced echoes in a broad area of relatively weak echoes, right on the nrn edge of the snow shield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Either way, the nrn edge of the snow shield should have a relatively "decent" band of precip moving across the area, and then pushing off to the se. That's where the best mid level frontogenesis and deformation will be. Tough to say where it sets up, but where ever this does end up developing, I could see this as a band of enhanced echoes in a broad area of relatively weak echoes, right on the nrn edge of the snow shield. Over my house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catoctin wx Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 in this winter, 48 hrs out, anyone's guess is as good as another No doubt, but it's a forecast that I generally rely on and find accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catoctin wx Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 They need some Accuwx hype graphics to make the storm name seem more scary The apocalypse graphics should only be used when a moderate size city is threatened. Doesn't looks like it's gonna be this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Chill Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Lots of banking on a near perfect phase. I guess that's to be expected at this point in our craptastic winter. I'd lean toward lighter totals still. I was just joking around that the JMA came in drier. Euro isn't the one to hang on and I'm not saying that just because I don't like it. I've seen it enough when ull's are closed off west of the ms river. Not sure why it does what it does with closed h5 lows out west but we're not just being weenies when we refer to the euro not handling things correctly in these kind of setups. An I agree, leaning towards higher totals is relatively safe. The entire system is going to draw a bunch of moisuture from the south into it as it traverses. It's already doing that now. I don't think a perfect phase is necessary either for a 1/2" of gpf but we def don't want the vorts to miss each other either. Too bad the foothills outside of denver aren't within driving distance. There are going to be some 3-4' totals in areas like evergreen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 THIS IS A LOW CONFIDENCE FORECAST. Keep that in mind. There is a large amount of uncertainty given the different model runs both against each other and against themselves run-to-run. Surface temperatures will be a problem with this system, only compounding the forecast headaches heading into tomorrow night. I favored some phasing of the disturbance, but did not dig the system as far south and develop as much back-end precipitation as the 12z NAM. This forecast is a blend of the 12z NAM and 12z GFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 15z SREFs came in wetter QPF wise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I was just joking around that the JMA came in drier. Euro isn't the one to hang on and I'm not saying that just because I don't like it. I've seen it enough when ull's are closed off west of the ms river. Not sure why it does what it does with closed h5 lows out west but we're not just being weenies when we refer to the euro not handling things correctly in these kind of setups. An I agree, leaning towards higher totals is relatively safe. The entire system is going to draw a bunch of moisuture from the south into it as it traverses. It's already doing that now. I don't think a perfect phase is necessary either for a 1/2" of gpf but we def don't want the vorts to miss each other either. Too bad the foothills outside of denver aren't within driving distance. There are going to be some 3-4' totals in areas like evergreen. In a complex solution it's usually safer to run toward the idea that either it won't come together as modeled or it will do so too late, in the wrong spot, etc. As was already noted the Euro was a bit dry in the last snow event but not as bad as some would lead us to believe. It could very welll be it's mishandling the 500 low... but there is plenty of rationalization in this thread that's at least somewhat questionable if not from everyone. And I said leaning toward *lower* totals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris87 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 THIS IS A LOW CONFIDENCE FORECAST. Keep that in mind. There is a large amount of uncertainty given the different model runs both against each other and against themselves run-to-run. Surface temperatures will be a problem with this system, only compounding the forecast headaches heading into tomorrow night. I favored some phasing of the disturbance, but did not dig the system as far south and develop as much back-end precipitation as the 12z NAM. This forecast is a blend of the 12z NAM and 12z GFS. I think it's a good first guess....nice map update! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted February 3, 2012 Author Share Posted February 3, 2012 good thing im going to deep creek sunday morning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillzPirate Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 THIS IS A LOW CONFIDENCE FORECAST. Keep that in mind. There is a large amount of uncertainty given the different model runs both against each other and against themselves run-to-run. Surface temperatures will be a problem with this system, only compounding the forecast headaches heading into tomorrow night. I favored some phasing of the disturbance, but did not dig the system as far south and develop as much back-end precipitation as the 12z NAM. This forecast is a blend of the 12z NAM and 12z GFS. yikes, def hurt my confidence here in the district Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.