Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,608
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

The March 6 Storm- The (last) Great White Hope, Part II


stormtracker

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's odd how the NAM is being (almost) totally ignored it seems.   Or maybe I'm wrong and folks are blending it.

 

it's been pretty rock solid.

 

i guess the question is if it's producing too much precip and if that's impacting the temp profile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post and reasoning. Agree with the 4-8 call for immediate DC.

Question: regarding the dry punch above -10c...what exactly do you want to see there? Is it a case where you want to see just a touch of drying there for increased instability, but you still want to keep the -10 to -20 layer saturated with respect to ice?

Yes. Although you don't necessarily need the moist column to extend much above the -10/-12C layer, since the -10 is usually the cutoff where there's a 50-50 balance btwn ice crystals and supercooled water vapor. Obviously, the colder (deeper) the top layer gets, the more ice nuclei availability, which would be better. -15C is the mean for the best dendritic growth given the vapor pressure differential with respect to ice.

So, a dry layer above the -10 to -15C isotherm represents 'potential' instability since, when lifted, you steepen the lapse rate within that layer considering your cooling less at the bottom (moist) portion of that layer -- i.e. moist adiabatic -- compared the the top (drier) part of the layer -- i.e. dry adiabatic. Thus the term 'potential'...you need lift, and you need moisture in the lower part of the layer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ditto BWI (as well as point and click downtown Baltimore even).

It's easy to see on the 4km NAM. If the temp is 32-33 then your keeping the temp isothermal with rates. It quickly jumps up beyond that line. The line at 10z goes from EZF to ADW to Annapolis to Aberdeen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the GFS holds or improves LWX will have to go big with the warnings as there is a threat for some serious heavy wet snow totals.

 

I generally hate to predict model output but I'd guess it holds similar to last run. Perhaps NAM is a bit high. If we are speaking voodoo style it's probably good that LWX is going a tiny bit low - bodes well for us to get pasted lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the GFS holds or improves LWX will have to go big with the warnings as there is a threat for some serious heavy wet snow totals.

Knowing LWX they will bump back to prior totals later

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NAM has a cold and wet bias...I don't think that changes because it pastes us...I'd blend

 

I get the NAM's bias rep, but does "blending" really make sense here?  It's not like the GFS and NAM are projecting similar events but spitting out somewhat different temp and QPF numbers.  These projections are radically different, especially considering how close we are to go-time.  I would certainly take a little off the top of the NAM QPF prediction given its history, but if you buy the NAM solution, I don't think you significantly change your projection because the GFS and Euro say a very different storm will produce very different totals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, the NAM really throws north the precip shield. Farther than any other model.. by a good 25-50 miles

I dont think the NAM throws the precip further north, its northern edge is similar to the globals, the difference is the NAM sets up a deform band along the northern edge of the precip in northern MD and southern PA and sits it there for 12 hours.  The globals "hint" at it but instead of putting out .25 qpf in that band every 3 hours, they are putting out .1 and that is the difference between getting .75 and 1.75 along the Mason DIxon line.  Maybe the higher res of the NAM is allowing it to see that deform band that often sets up where the moisture convergence is banked up against the confluence.  I dont know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, the NAM really throws north the precip shield. Farther than any other model.. by a good 25-50 miles

I dont think the NAM throws the precip further north, its northern edge is similar to the globals, the difference is the NAM sets up a deform band along the northern edge of the precip in northern MD and southern PA and sits it there for 12 hours. The globals "hint" at it but instead of putting out .25 qpf in that band every 3 hours, they are putting out .1 and that is the difference between getting .75 and 1.75 along the Mason DIxon line. Maybe the higher res of the NAM is allowing it to see that deform band that often sets up where the moisture convergence is banked up against the confluence. I dont know.

Great pickup!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...