Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

Big Snow threat, what will it do, part II


Typhoon Tip

Recommended Posts

NAM has a giant QPF donut around NYC and a toaster bath for much of CT. Looks solid for eastern areas and SNH/ S VT. Seems north of previous runs and a bit more tucked in but mid levels are kind of weird and don't have deep saturation plus there's a giant dry slot around NYC and up to CT. Definitely something to keep an eye on for future runs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Scott gotcha. Ncep at one time had a paper on convective feedback with particular examples. Most of the time when I hear the term tossed the criteria isn't close to met. But I'm sure it all plays a part I just think most of the time it's a diminishing part/problem.

Often when we see these long drawn out solutions it's the models way of a compromise solution pending a movement towards one of the extremes. iE multi day storms seem to be the new inverted troughs

 

OceanSt gave a good thing to look at. Those spurious lows and random vortmaxes that sometimes happen with feedback...something like that to me is a red flag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would caution Ray through SNH to respect the overrunning. You almost could argue it might be best there. 

 

I would not sell it short, As seen in the past, Does not have the glamor of a wrapped up system, But can more then get the job done and the bottom line is ending up with accumulating snow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO it's far more likely that there were gaps or errors at init than propagated data errors caused by feedback. We can see every run the changes at even 24 hours are dramatic vs the previous runs. That has zero to do with coastal convective feedback at 72 hours but is immediate and traceable.

That won't stop someone from saying it was feedback that caused the wobbles but it's an overused term and doesn't fit the old standard definition of there being an associated mega qpf hotspot that spins up spurious mL features. Those still happen but at a much lower frequency than earlier model versions.

Model error does not equal convective feedback all the time.

I'm not saying feedback kept it from producing a bomb...and I'm not smart enough to know if there was or wasn't feedback and if there was, if it played a role in the strung out prog. Just throwing it out there that the GFS has a bad history with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how there was no talk of any dryslots..just non stop snows..and then 1 run of the NAm comes out and suddenly the talk turns to everyone from ORH south being screwed. God do I hate that model

It's always been there.  You just never know where it will end up.  Now that we are a day or 2 away I see no reason to not discuss it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always been there.  You just never know where it will end up.  Now that we are a day or 2 away I see no reason to not discuss it. 

There was no model showing it..and there wasn't anyone talking about until it showed up on the NAM..Until we see other models showing it..it's just the NAM pulling usual BS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no model showing it..and there wasn't anyone talking about until it showed up on the NAM..Until we see other models showing it..it's just the NAM pulling usual BS

I think the take away was that the low was a little more tucked in - a trend we hope to see continue with the other models...

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...