chrisNJ Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Latest SREF's look drier, at least for the LV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quakertown needs snow Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Latest Wxsim with 6z GFS/NAM mix for NW Chesco above 600ft Snow begining by 3am getting moderate by 6am and heavy by 9am - heaviest snow during mid-day and afternoon. Total snow 7" to 9" temps getting no higher than 32.2 at 5pm. Would love to see Wxsim forecast happen but thats my wishcasting at this point. Time to start heading into now cast mode Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Latest SREF's look drier, at least for the LV. They could be. Still not bad with good snow west late tonight and half decent back-end snows wed night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJwinter23 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Yeah I'll admit my ignorance to what happened outside of this region. I clearly recall there were some pretty high forecasts in ABE and they ended up with a trace ... further northeast I don't remember as well. Yup that was a NAM placement fail further west than what materialized...It was at least good at picking up the potential for a snowbomb somewhere as i recall. It still sucks though...it ended up also being a much more widespread 4-8+ eastern NJ into New England Totally off topic but why don't you change your location then?. I dont know..I'm back and forth enough and just haven't really cared that much to change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 12z NAM hasn't changed much. Really slows the 500 mb low as it hits the coast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Adam Posted March 5, 2013 Author Share Posted March 5, 2013 Will Monmouth/Ocean/Burlington counties get close to the accumulation depicted in 12Z NAM? I know Mon/Ocean was ground zero in November so I know its possible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJ_Ken Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 I realize how untrustworthy the clown is, but, dare I say it, that looks semi-reasonable... well, no, maybe "semi-possible" is a better made-up word to describe it. If today was February 5 rather than March 5, I might even say it was underdone. As it is, the key to verification.... as we have been discussing for days now... will be just how much dynamic cooling we can get and, then if the precip does manage to fall hard enough to give us all/mostly snow during the day tomorrow, just how much of it will accumulate with the warm ground, dicey boundary layer, and March sun all doing their dirty business. Realistically (with the snow goggles off), I would say likely accumulations in South Jersey will be half of what is shown by the clown and probably mostly melted by the time we wake up Thursday morning, but I think the map shows a reasonable high end in case things go just about perfectly (and, no, in a winter like this, I am not betting on perfection at this point). EDIT: Just to be clear, I was referring to the 12z NAM clown map directly above this post. I didn't want to copy it into my post to save a bit of bandwidth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dssbss Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 So...what are the chances of this beast stalling out at the last minute and giving us a big surprise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 This mornings NAM/SREF really target De/SJ for a band of heavy precip. Hence the clown map bullseye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowanBrandon Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 GFS is UGLY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg ralls Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 What does the GFS show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goombatommy Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 GFS would rip out the heart of any snow lover....yikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 No back-end precip on GFS. Only snow would be front-end to the west. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchell Gaines Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 GFS has massive feedback issues in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 GFS continues to move the 500 mb low faster near the coast swinging the storm further offshore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJ_Ken Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 I am far from an expert, but I find it hard to believe the seemingly very progressive 12z GFS. I am not saying that we (i.e. PHL and immediate burbs) are going to rocked by the backlash, but I am quite certain that somebody in the Mt. Holly cwa will, and the 12z doesn't seem to be even hinting at that anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 9Z SREF plume for TTN cut 3" off their max forecast at 3Z. 12Z NAM is definitely less copious, but not by a whole lot. GFS has maybe a coating back home now. UKMET also came in drier. RGEM not too exciting. I'm comfortable with my "up to 2 inches" from yesterday, and barring a radical shift in the GGEM/ECMWF, I'll ride with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 GFS continues to move the 500 mb low faster near the coast swinging the storm further offshore This isn't a single run issue, it has been a continuous trend over the last 24 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 This isn't a single run issue, it has been a continuous trend over the last 24 hours. Agree . Thats one reason SREF/NAM are wetter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby EPAWA Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 GFS has massive feedback issues in my view. THIS Thank you, finally someone acknowledges what I see... classic CF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherQ Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Ray, Mitch, Adam, Tom.....anyone see this mornings sat pic for the CONUS? There is a Low off Mass. that seems to be moving E-ESE of another Low to its NNE. Is the GFS picking up on that feature and pushing the storm's SLP more E than NE in the time banding would set up and therefore screw the ILG-TTN group? http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/us_comp/us_comp_big.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 THIS Thank you, finally someone acknowledges what I see... classic CF Do you believe the EC and GFS are having an identical problem? Because the 12Z GFS is extremely similar to the 0Z ECMWF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby EPAWA Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Do you believe the EC and GFS are having an identical problem? Because the 12Z GFS is extremely similar to the 0Z ECMWF. It is a distinct possibility - I wouldn't forecast based off of CF errors, that is more like grasping at straws. The NAM/SREF shift SE and the RGEM looking like crap would lead me to believe lighter amounts are plausible, just not to the extreme the EC/GFS have it. Blend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Ray, Mitch, Adam, Tom.....anyone see this mornings sat pic for the CONUS? There is a Low off Mass. that seems to be moving E-ESE of another Low to its NNE. Is the GFS picking up on that feature and pushing the storm's SLP more E than NE in the time banding would set up and therefore screw the ILG-TTN group? http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/us_comp/us_comp_big.html The delayed dissipation of the low to the NE of the system and the delayed phase with the next low dropping SE behind it both seem to play a role in the further east swing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchell Gaines Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Do you believe the EC and GFS are having an identical problem? Because the 12Z GFS is extremely similar to the 0Z ECMWF. I would disagree with that granted the EC does have thunderstorms in that general area offshore the QPF is 1 inches on the Ec in that region not 3 like the 12z GFS. As a result the EC actually has A CCB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchell Gaines Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 The delayed dissipation of the low to the NE of the system and the delayed phase with the next low dropping SE behind it both seem to play a role in the further east swing. Yup typical for a west trend to be to far then correct east a little at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 It is a distinct possibility - I wouldn't forecast based off of CF errors, that is more like grasping at straws. The NAM/SREF shift SE and the RGEM looking like crap would lead me to believe lighter amounts are plausible, just not to the extreme the EC/GFS have it. Blend? The NAM and SREF's have performed atrociously all winter, particularly where they disagree with the globals. Where they agree with a global like the EC then they are trustworthy. I wouldn't base a forecast off of them much at all if their support from the globals is non-existant. They *may* get an idea right but their placement is suspect and overamplification of it is likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby EPAWA Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 The NAM and SREF's have performed atrociously all winter, particularly where they disagree with the globals. Where they agree with a global like the EC then they are trustworthy. I wouldn't base a forecast off of them much at all if their support from the globals is non-existant. They *may* get an idea right but their placement is suspect and overamplification of it is likely. I can't argue that... not at all. Still think 1-3" NW of PHL/TTN line through ABE is the good call ATTM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 I can't argue that... not at all. Still think 1-3" NW of PHL/TTN line through ABE is the good call ATTM. I don't think that's unreasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby EPAWA Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 I don't think that's unreasonable. Thanks Ray... and especially thanks for keeping my frustration of a lackluster Winter and over-zealous mind in check. You have valid points that simply can't be argued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.