Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,586
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Jan 2-3 Big Snow Threat , Part 3


weathafella

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Those damn early release model runs again...lol

 

At least someone has a sense of humor ...

 

You see, the secret to roughing Kevin's feathers and getting his dome beady with sweat droplets, is you wait until about 9 minutes and 34 seconds prior to the actual public access time to make a post like that.   The awesome deviance of that being that iT suspend disbelief, because some Mets have private access..etc,  ... and it drills right into the darker recesses of his and his type's fears -- so gotta figure it's real, right?  

 

Muah hahahaha.  

 

Actually, I knew there was about a 99% chance that the NAM would NOT whiff actually, which is why it was so awesome to get Kevin all emotionally riled up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least someone has a sense of humor ...

 

You see, the secret to roughing Kevin's feathers and getting his dome beady with sweat droplets, is you wait until about 9 minutes and 34 seconds prior to the actual public access time to make a post like that.   The awesome deviance of that being that is suspend disbelief ... and drills right into the darker recesses of his and his type's fears -- so they gotta figure it's real, right?  

 

Muah hahahaha.  

 

Actually, I knew there was about a 99% chance that the NAM would NOT whiff actually, which is way it was so awesome to get Kevin all emotionally riled up.

You are going to lose it..totally and completly when the pack is wiped out on Monday. You always do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you disagree with its output, and why??

 

 

Yes. Because it is not a very reliable piece of guidance. It tends to overstate mesoscale effects of terrain and sometimes has little convective blobs. Its ok to look at it...and it might at least give a general sense of screwzones or jackpots...but you have to tone it down quite a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These rpm runs are highly entertaining and many ocm mets will use these for their forecasts tonight

I don't think it wise to hug any particular model, nor discount any.

Pick your spots. Sometimes they're wrong, sometimes they're right.

Did I think that I was really going to see the 50" of snow that that the RPM forecasted before the blizzard?

No

I do buy what it is selling in this particular instance, though; there is precedence for an FU-zone of subsidence just to the west of the area of cf enhancement in these very cold systems that have oes present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Because it is not a very reliable piece of guidance. It tends to overstate mesoscale effects of terrain and sometimes has little convective blobs. Its ok to look at it...and it might at least give a general sense of screwzones or jackpots...but you have to tone it down quite a bit.

Tone it down, which I have.

 

I do not expect to see the 6" that it implies, but I do expect to see anywhere from 8-12".....12" likely reserved for those just se of this area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are going to lose it..totally and completly when the pack is wiped out on Monday. You always do

 

That could be an interesting flood threat...  I am not sure what the exact QPF numbers are, but the ground is undoubtedly going to be frozen solid and unavailable to moisture absorption.  Should it really balm to the mid or upper 50s with DP, and we get a heavy line of slow moving showers paralleling the boundary sort of deal, than you got big melt-off and rain combined right into quick response water ways.  

 

There's always something to monitor...  relax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that 6" is too low, but 8" is entirely within the realm of possibility.

 

I have a question for the doubters:

 How much do you think I received in PD II and Dec 2003??

 

How about the October 2011 event?

Everyone thought I was overplaying the subsidence in that, too.

I don't doubt it's real. Happens more often than not especially with the given set-up.  My thinking is more toward the N&W  re: Merrimack Valley for ~2-4" less than surrounding environs

I have +/- 14" MBY

Those that you question are extreme examples. I agree and no argument here but with the trend I think you maybe underplaying given the QPF and depth of the cold. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt it's real. Happens more often than not especially with the given set-up.  My thinking is more toward the N&W  re: Merrimack Valley for ~2-4" less than surrounding environs

I have +/- 14" MBY

Those that you question are extreme examples. I agree and no argument here but with the trend I think you maybe underplaying given the QPF and depth of the cold. 

 

I don't doubt it's real. Happens more often than not especially with the given set-up.  My thinking is more toward the N&W  re: Merrimack Valley for ~2-4" less than surrounding environs

I have +/- 14" MBY

Those that you question are extreme examples. I agree and no argument here but with the trend I think you maybe underplaying given the QPF and depth of the cold. 

Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...