stormtracker Posted March 2, 2013 Author Share Posted March 2, 2013 Not sure what you mean. Bowling ball certainly was in play just felt like phasing was better option for cold. This is about perfect for us obviously.. Maybe too soon. Last night...lol..remember when somebody said that to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 I'm gonna go with Zwyts on this. Randy, I told you the other day to enjoy your snowstorm. You still not believe me? Good consensus between all Globals at this point in my book . That 18z GFS looks like a dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 gfs ftw? https://twitter.com/islivingston/status/302836981166120961 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Chill Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 yes...But I am talking about what is probably going to happen Yea, i understand. There could be some timing luck in play. Get the first batch of waa late at night and cool the column just right so it would be all snow during the heavier rates during the day....and if the rates stay heavy long enough.....heh... Of course, this was just another dream run before we get punched a couple more times. I think we can safely say this is going to be a big snow event for and area within a 2 hour drive from dca in one direction or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtracker Posted March 2, 2013 Author Share Posted March 2, 2013 Well, the incipient ULL is still just off of the coast of BC. 0z tonight then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Wow 18Z with the crush. Lots of heavy, wet snow That's the bad kind. There is no bad snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCAlexandria Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 gfs ftw? https://twitter.com/islivingston/status/302836981166120961 That is beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtracker Posted March 2, 2013 Author Share Posted March 2, 2013 My apologies to you Ian. I didn't realize you got a met degree, sorry again for giving you a hard time. 'copter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RitualOfTheTrout Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Too bad it is 18z. Fluke run, toss it. No no... it is only a fluke run when it shows less snow, when it shows more snow it is sniffing out something the other models / runs have missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Well, the incipient ULL is still just off of the coast of BC. So would 00z be the first run with the ULL in the system? Or will we have to wait till 12z tomorrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 I don't even know how you can handle all the bashing when few of the weenies who constantly bash it have little clue what these models are doing. That said, the NAM is still a bad numerical model, but I know you have nothing to do with that model. It's not so bad though some of it is pretty silly. I try to give information from my/our perspective, and people can decide how to interpret or use that information. I plead the 5th on the NAM (though you are correct that I have nothing to do with it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disc Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Congrats Winchester. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Matt, I'm also thinking the GFS is too warm as is verbatim. Agree about the lower elevations, but this solution would make you beyond happy. Will it happen...well that's another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 it can and probably will come further north....and me and you will be dealing with precip type problems...love this rin though....I dont really care if I get a ton of snow...even a few inches would make me happy I'dlike DCA to get enough tmake your winter forecast look good in terms of snow. I have my doubts that dca would get that much with marginal temps. On grass I would probably do better than them despite being east but I suspect I'd still get screwed. I would like someone in the area to get 1958 type snow. That would be a success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Matt, I'm also thinking the GFS is too warm as is verbatim. Agree about the lower elevations, but this solution would make you beyond happy. Will it happen...well that's another story. But this is probably a best case scenario. Any more northward shift and we might pay in terms of temps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinylfreak89 Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 vinyl, I think you are wrong in saying that phasing brought this storm north, the reason it came north a bit was the block moved out of the way a bit and the ull went positive to negative faster. reread my post. I never said this phased. I said it is closer to a phase. Phasing does nothing at this point but help us with cold air, and potentially bomb out the low, but it shouldn't affect VVs, QPF, etc that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterymix Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 gfs ftw? BDPkoT_CIAAVZLo.gif large.png https://twitter.com/islivingston/status/302836981166120961 DCA has a chance to log a "March" date into the chart below. Maybe 5% to 10% probability? It would have to shove one of the other dates aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Matt, I'm also thinking the GFS is too warm as is verbatim. Agree about the lower elevations, but this solution would make you beyond happy. Will it happen...well that's another story. Yeah, you really won't get good model output on a computer on this for snowfall when the BL is marginal. Huge omega and dynamics should give a lot of the borderline areas a paste job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 So would 00z be the first run with the ULL in the system? Or will we have to wait till 12z tomorrow? Looks like the base of the trough should be fully inland by 06z, so 12z for good raob coverage. Though, I suspect it is close enough to shore (and therefore the airports) that we are getting decent flight-based coverage already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 I would argue (and would want some of dtk's opinions) that the small details here such as splitting off from the northern stream, some southern stream interaction, and possibly phasing with the northern stream again late is likely adding much more to model difficulties than lack of UA sampling of the upper low. Also, as in most cases, ejecting lows interacting with the complex terrain of the Rockies adds additional variability. It is a tricky UA pattern for the models to handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinylfreak89 Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 I would argue (and would want some of dtk's opinions) that the small details here such as splitting off from the northern stream, some southern stream interaction, and possibly phasing with the northern stream again late is likely adding much more to model difficulties than lack of UA sampling of the upper low. Also, as in most cases, ejecting lows interacting with the complex terrain of the Rockies adds additional variability. It is a tricky UA pattern for the models to handle. this and the complex evolution of the pseudo 50/50 feature (which I think honestly has had at least 60 % of the impact) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Looks like the base of the trough should be fully inland by 06z, so 12z for good raob coverage. Though, I suspect it is close enough to shore (and therefore the airports) that we are getting decent flight-based coverage already. Thanks for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 new kensington PA and not a met and never seen you post here before,..dont let the door hit your interloping ass on the way out You make my sides hurt. On a more serious note, is anyone encouraged by the lining up of the GFS, GGEM, NAM, srefs? I like the agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Ironically, 18z GFS total QPF is close to the total QPF of the 18z DGEX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 I would argue (and would want some of dtk's opinions) that the small details here such as splitting off from the northern stream, some southern stream interaction, and possibly phasing with the northern stream again late is likely adding much more to model difficulties than lack of UA sampling of the upper low. Also, as in most cases, ejecting lows interacting with the complex terrain of the Rockies adds additional variability. It is a tricky UA pattern for the models to handle. All fair points....it's not like this is a straightforward forecast and a done deal despite the growing consensus. Just look at how much the solution has evolved over the past 36 hours (despite the similar end result). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Ironically, 18z GFS total QPF is close to the total QPF of the 18z DGEX And GGEM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gymengineer Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 those arent actually snowstorm totals so 1996 is slightly too high and 2003 is slightly too low It was a bad decision for them to toss aside the snowstorms lists and go to this 1-day, 2-day, 3-day ranking. I know why they did it in terms of climate records, but lumping the clipper snow with the 1/96 blizzard makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinylfreak89 Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Looks like overall, there is good model consistency again between most of the 12Z non US and the 18Z US suites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gymengineer Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 it is also deceptive in terms of dates since we all know the snow started saturday night....the beltway was covered by 10pm Yup, and if they are going to do it this way, then shouldn't there be two entries for 1/96? 1/6-8 and 1/7-9? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 i think it is shortsighted to talk about verification scores and what data is ingested in the model and how by definition it should perform better than 12z in the means since it is 6 hours later....when we all have anecdotal evidence and experience that it is not as skilled in our backyard and often has goofy solutions that are an outlier....In fact there is a certain renowned met who posts in our forum, who has a less than glowing opinion of the off GFS runs, especially 18z, but I will let him speak for himself on that if he wants to That's fine, but your evidence is purely anecdotal. In fact, there used to be a considerable gap between 06/18 and the 00/12 cycles, but as the models, assimilation, and observations have improved, this gap has been narrowed consideribly (and in the 4-5 day lead time, basically closed within any statistical significance). This does not guarantee that this will be the case for any individual discrete, regional event. I don't really need a lesson on error growth nor data assimilation cycling. I'd be happy to discuss this in more detail with any renowned met (and if it is who i think you are referring to, will be sure to do so over a beer the next time we are out golfing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.