Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

February 8-12 East Coast Storm Potential


REDMK6GLI

Recommended Posts

You didn't think the evolution looked different at all? Still was a good set up. But initially it did look different.

Yea it was different but this far out changes like this are normal. As John pointed out it basically fores the storm with the block, that's why it kinda came together at the surface real quick. The surface this far out is still mostly noise anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

People live and die by the model runs and when it dosn't show what they want it to show they spew nonsense, happens all the time, but not to this extent. The gfs pulled it off... In a Pretty odd IMHO

It's only odd if you're participating in modelology and not meteorology. The meteorology of this set up on every model and ensemble guidance set suggests there is a heightened chance of a significant winter storm in the Northeast. While it is impossible to know the details, which will eventually determine the track and intensity -- and many are still on the table -- what's important is not what each run is showing with the storm specifically, but it's surroundings.

This run had a weaker shortwave initially that was more sheared and flat. But what is important to take out of this run? Look how that sheared and flat energy was forced southward underneath a developing Central Canada blocking feature and allowed to amplify eastward. This is another run signaling strong and well timed confluence and red flags up everywhere for big east coast cyclogenesis.

That's about it. All of the important pieces are still on the table. The play by play analysis crap is useless especially when it's so god awful that people are saying the model shows nothing and it turns out showing a huge storm. Look at the players on the field and the evolution of the pattern and you get a much better idea as to what's going on..and save yourself some sanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only odd if you're participating in modelology and not meteorology. The meteorology of this set up on every model and ensemble guidance set suggests there is a heightened chance of a significant winter storm in the Northeast. While it is impossible to know the details, which will eventually determine the track and intensity -- and many are still on the table -- what's important is not what each run is showing with the storm specifically, but it's surroundings.

This run had a weaker shortwave initially that was more sheared and flat. But what is important to take out of this run? Look how that sheared and flat energy was forced southward underneath a developing Central Canada blocking feature and allowed to amplify eastward. This is another run signaling strong and well timed confluence and red flags up everywhere for big east coast cyclogenesis.

That's about it. All of the important pieces are still on the table. The play by play analysis crap is useless especially when it's so god awful that people are saying the model shows nothing and it turns out showing a huge storm. Look at the players on the field and the evolution of the pattern and you get a much better idea as to what's going on..and save yourself some sanity.

Thanks for putting things in prospective. Much appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trend today on the GFS has been for more of a flatter de-amped trough. That worries me. The GFS still pulled it off though, this run.

A few days ago, the gfs showed this being a lake cutter. Like Earthlight said the pieces are all there, and he's been right on the money with almost everything he said when he was discussing this time period. Then there was Ace who got banned because he was in panic mode that every storm is going to cut, which at this point is very improbable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PV was off the SE Canadian Coast and that was due to the weaker WB -NAO, so therefore the trough axis was too far east. Not to mention the lack of ridging on the West Coast. 

 

Although, as I said before:

 

 

Most likely the start of an erratic series of hiccups. We are in Medium Range, so this is to be expected. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That lead vort first showed up on the EURO on 12Z 01/31/2014 on HR 192.

I know but it seemed stronger this time hence lower heights ahead of the next storm and not letting it amplify enough to come up the coast. I'd like to hear a met comment. Maybe I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both the Ensembles and the Control were  east, that's why we keep saying no HECS talk  6 days out , just see how the week progresses .

 

The difference was that 0z came out less phased with the streams staying separate. But as we have seen this winter

all the interesting action has been a result of short range changes that happened under 72. That's why the 120+ hr

is fun to look at for potential, but the details have to wait to within a few days.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference was that 0z came out less phased with the streams staying separate. But as we have seen this winter

all the interesting action has been a result of short range changes that happened under 72. That's why the 120+ hr

is fun to look at for potential, but the details have to wait to within a few days.

 

attachicon.giff120.gif

 

attachicon.giff144.gif

I couldn`t agree more , Everyone wants to be 1st  . I think its better to be right . 2 - 12 inch snowstorms popped up this year inside 72 hours which tells me the models are having a hard time seeing details in there MR .  So asking it  to define a solution 6 days out let alone ( 10 )  is asking a lot . Its been on here for 5 days already and seems like its been forever but that happens when you constantly look a something that is 10 plus days away .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn`t agree more , Everyone wants to be 1st  . I think its better to be right . 2 - 12 inch snowstorms popped up this year inside 72 hours which tells me the models are having a hard time seeing details in there MR .  So asking it  to define a solution 6 days out let alone ( 10 )  is asking a lot . Its been on here for 5 days already and seems like its been forever but that happens when you constantly look a something that is 10 plus days away .

 

Yeah, you know the details are going to have to wait until we get closer in. The specifics on how close together the two

streams get will make the whole forecast.

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...