Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,584
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Big Snow threat, what will it do, part II


Typhoon Tip

Recommended Posts

I think the models are correct and this continues to be surpressed south. This large cold mass in place I just don't see how the two will phase and move up the coast. I think I will be lucky to get 2 inches here in Amherst, NH where this is a south of the pike storm down to NYC. Very similar to January 2009. Though this is just my opinion thoughts?

40/70 Benchmark in Wilmington agrees with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

lol I love the 850 jockeys - though this storm will bring out the fluff factor fairies. Just because it's cold doesn't mean you get 20:1!

Have you looked at inflow? You seem to be overly conservative, almost like the JB anthesis, it's OK to be conservative but you seem to be taking it to another level, have a shot in Leon's name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NAM is suffering from convective feed-back.   It's not a "we toss" bs thing.  It's a toss because it's wrong. If this system goes on to be blasse 30 hours of light snow and flurries, it won't be for the NAM's current depiction of the evolution. 

 

The NAM is a terrible model probably 8 out of 10 storms.  Sure it may have convective issues but it's larger issue is that it sucks most of the time.  That's just the plain truth.  It's garbage.  The comical flop between h84 at 18z and h78 at 0z shows why it's utterly worthless MOST of the time outside of maybe 30-42 hours.

 

I haven't followed this at all other than what's been posted here.  With no previous bias in place from early guidance I'll reserve judgment other than to say huge wound up lows have not been the norm this year.  Instead less organized events have been, let's see what the other guidance brings in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What factors would have to start to come into play for this to start shifting north?

 

Good question. 

 

Firstly, we have to get closer in, because the models are detonating lows at least excuse imaginable, way too premature and prior to the main S/W mechanics crossing the baroclinic axis.  Even the Euro has been guilty of this at times recently.  

 

These lows are born out of explosive convection born of intense baroclinicity as it is acted upon by very minimal diffluence aloft, and because there is so much instability present, the models then maximize; but that "steals" the dynamics away from the better deep layer mechanics for the latter S/W amplitude when it nears, such that the better forcing for low genesis has less to work with.  

 

It's common in progressive flows for this type of "convective shearing" of systems.   To get a system further north in the models would require they stop blowing up lows too early.  The only real way to correct for this is to put convective schemes in the models that truly work.  Not sure why, but for some reason nearer term solutions seem to compensate and/or suppress over-zealous convective -derived low formation, in lieu of the better forcing that comes along with the S/W.  So therein is the answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question. 

 

Firstly, we have to get closer in, because the models are detonating lows at least excuse imaginable, way too premature and prior to the main S/W mechanics crossing the baroclinic axis.  Even the Euro has been guilty of this at times recently.  

 

These lows are born out of explosive convection born of intense baroclinicity as it is acted upon by very minimal diffluence aloft, and because there is so much instability present, the models then maximize; but that "steals" the dynamics away from the better deep layer mechanics for the latter S/W amplitude when it nears, such that the better forcing for low genesis has less to work with.  

 

It's common in progressive flows for this type of "convective shearing" of systems.   To get a system further north in the models would require they stop blowing up lows too early.  The only real way to correct for this is to put convective schemes in the models that truly work.  Not sure why, but for some reason nearer term solutions seem to compensate and/or suppress over-zealous convective -derived low formation, in lieu of the better forcing that comes along with the S/W.  So therein is the answer. 

Hmmm premature detonation that can be serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NAM is a terrible model probably 8 out of 10 storms. Sure it may have convective issues but it's larger issue is that it sucks most of the time. That's just the plain truth. It's garbage. The comical flop between h84 at 18z and h78 at 0z shows why it's utterly worthless MOST of the time outside of maybe 30-42 hours.

I haven't followed this at all other than what's been posted here. With no previous bias in place from early guidance I'll reserve judgment other than to say huge wound up lows have not been the norm this year. Instead less organized events have been, let's see what the other guidance brings in.

How was the powdah day? Thigh burner?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NAM is a terrible model probably 8 out of 10 storms.  Sure it may have convective issues but it's larger issue is that it sucks most of the time.  That's just the plain truth.  It's garbage.  The comical flop between h84 at 18z and h78 at 0z shows why it's utterly worthless MOST of the time outside of maybe 30-42 hours.

 

I haven't followed this at all other than what's been posted here.  With no previous bias in place from early guidance I'll reserve judgment other than to say huge wound up lows have not been the norm this year.  Instead less organized events have been, let's see what the other guidance brings in.

 

 

It's been a "gradient pattern" year thus far, which as I gather is a blogosphere met phrase creation that describes anomalously fast flows.  ... Obviously, slow moving bombs are a commodity in that sort of regime. 

 

What we have here is just so much insano gradient that it tries really to produce way over the top.  Removing convection issues in the runs, this would probably be a fast moving bomb with like 9 hours of choking wind and snow.  But convection has been dominating as a limiting factor to more organized cyclogen, and until that gets ironed out it is not like we get a more coherent picture.  Convection is actually making this durational in nature in the 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...