mitchnick Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 0Z NAM looks, at least, wet through 33 hrs vs. 18z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 0Z NAM looks, at least, wet through 33 hrs vs. 18z It seems quite a bit stronger, not as fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaltimoreWxGuy Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 A bit wetter, but also worse with timing and maybe a touch warmer at the surface....I think its a snoozer for the metros..someone near the fall line and northwest may see a slushy inch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 It seems quite a bit stronger, not as fast. stripe of heaviest qpf is a hair north of BWI now lol these models suck and people wonder why us weenies never give up hope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 A bit wetter, but also worse with timing and maybe a touch warmer at the surface....I think its a snoozer for the metros..someone near the fall line and northwest may see a slushy inch look where it has the vort max now....PA just a hair north of southern VA like the last 3 or 4 runs http://mag.ncep.noaa.gov/NCOMAGWEB/appcontroller?prevPage=Param&MainPage=indexℑ=&page=Param&cycle=11%2F26%2F2012+00UTC&rname=UPPER+AIR+PARMS&pname=500_vort_ht&pdesc=&model=NAM&area=NAMER&cat=MODEL+GUIDANCE&fcast=042&areaDesc=North+America+-+US+Canada+and+northern+Mexico&prevArea=NAMER&currKey=model&returnToModel=&imageSize=L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 http://www.wxcaster....models_text.htm Thanks!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 A bit wetter, but also worse with timing and maybe a touch warmer at the surface....I think its a snoozer for the metros..someone near the fall line and northwest may see a slushy inch There's little worse than missing out on precip when snow is "possible". Give me the precip and I'll take my chances with the temps. If its rain, so be it. That's better than dry and wondering if it would have been snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaltimoreWxGuy Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Dont you want the vort max south of the area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Dont you want the vort max south of the area? absolutely in fact, considering it moved it north by 200 miles, I would think temps would be warmer this run than it shows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUweathermanDD Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Dont you want the vort max south of the area? Yes, but its a w/e moving vort, so keep that in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUweathermanDD Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 absolutely in fact, considering it moved it north by 200 miles, I would think temps would be warmer this run than it shows We'd need the nam to amp more than it just did and dig the s/w, hard to get qpf without the vort there. Just gotta keep looking, just in case it wants to do something for us. I mean snow wise we have no shot I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 look where it has the vort max now....PA just a hair north of southern VA like the last 3 or 4 runs http://mag.ncep.noaa.gov/NCOMAGWEB/appcontroller?prevPage=Param&MainPage=indexℑ=&page=Param&cycle=11%2F26%2F2012+00UTC&rname=UPPER+AIR+PARMS&pname=500_vort_ht&pdesc=&model=NAM&area=NAMER&cat=MODEL+GUIDANCE&fcast=042&areaDesc=North+America+-+US+Canada+and+northern+Mexico&prevArea=NAMER&currKey=model&returnToModel=&imageSize=L I'm not sure what you're looking at. The past few runs I haven't seen a vort south of us, unless you're talking about the one at about 54 hours. In fact the one timed with the precip is actually further south that it was earlier. If I'm misinterpreting let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I'm not sure what you're looking at. The past few runs I haven't seen a vort south of us, unless you're talking about the one at about 54 hours. In fact the one timed with the precip is actually further south that it was earlier. If I'm misinterpreting let me know. oops, my bad I was comparing it to the later one unfortunately, it doesn't change the model forecast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaltimoreWxGuy Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 CWG, awful quiet with this...not saying they shouldnt be but has there even been an aticle from Wes and the gang? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravensrule Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 CWG, awful quiet with this...not saying they shouldnt be but has there even been an aticle from Wes and the gang? Why would he write an article on a storm that never really had a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmatte Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Why would he write an article on a storm that never really had a chance. Odd thing is, CWG raised their snow potential from 1 to 2, four minutes ago on Facebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravensrule Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Odd thing is, CWG raised their snow potential from 1 to 2, four minutes ago on Facebook. I am not sure how their scale works, if it means chance of seeing snow in the air then it is correct. If it means sticking then it makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmatte Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I am not sure how their scale works, if it means chance of seeing snow in the air then it is correct. If it means sticking then it makes no sense. " Snow Potential Index: 2 (↑) - For most rain Tues, but far W areas *may* get enuf wet snow to coat grass, so a bump up" From CWG Facebook page...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I think we really need to stop with the "we are not getting anything" comments when it comes to storms. This section of the forum is for the mid atlantic which includes a large area. Some people will see flakes from this event. If you dont it doesnt mean someone else from our region wont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amped Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 NAM likes Southern PA http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~fxg1/NAMSFC4US_0z/snow60.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I think we really need to stop with the "we are not getting anything" comments when it comes to storms. This section of the forum is for the mid atlantic which includes a large area. Some people will see flakes from this event. If you dont it doesnt mean someone else from our region wont. I agree, of course. And even if we get no snow, anywhere, would people actually rather track partly cloudy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxmeddler Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 NAM likes Southern PAhttp://www.meteo.psu.edu/~fxg1/NAMSFC4US_0z/snow60.gif ~Snet form a deivce that cannot speel. That assumes at 10 to 1 ratio. Which will not happen with BL temps wet bulbing at 0°c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I am not sure how their scale works, if it means chance of seeing snow in the air then it is correct. If it means sticking then it makes no sense. It's for accumulating snow tho that can of course be .1" in a higher elevation spot etc. It covers the whole area and 2 is pretty low still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravensrule Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 It's for accumulating snow tho that can of course be .1" in a higher elevation spot etc. It covers the whole area and 2 is pretty low still. Got it, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 gfs is fast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmatte Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 It's for accumulating snow tho that can of course be .1" in a higher elevation spot etc. It covers the whole area and 2 is pretty low still. That's what I figured. I was just wondering what caused the jump from 1 to 2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 That's what I figured. I was just wondering what caused the jump from 1 to 2? i dunno.. we're closer to the 'event' for one potentially. possibly could have already been a 2. not sure much has changed positively for snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmatte Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 i dunno.. we're closer to the 'event' for one potentially. possibly could have already been a 2. not sure much has changed positively for snow. I was just trying to make sure I didn't miss something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 i dunno.. we're closer to the 'event' for one potentially. possibly could have already been a 2. not sure much has changed positively for snow. I'm sure not optimistic about it and was going to e-mail Jason that I don't think it warrants an article but I'd write one if he wanted it. The surface temps are really warm so I think you'd have to get back to the mountains with elevation to have much chance at snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalcottWx Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I'm sure not optimistic about it and was going to e-mail Jason that I don't think it warrants an article but I'd write one if he wanted it. The surface temps are really warm so I think you'd have to get back to the mountains with elevation to have much chance at snow. God this sucks lol. I want to see snow fall in Baltimore some time this year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.