Stevo6899 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 GFS gets as far north as WV with the sfc low then due east off the VA coast. Little OT, but this current mid atl is a bit stronger and going a lot further north than it looked last night. Maybe this next storm will do the same, or it will go even more SE with the mid atl storm squashing the ridge a bit south. Just thinking out loud and trying to learn why a storm tracks where it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 The problem is the sfc low position doesn't make sense given that map. It should be further NW closer to the PV hook Thus what i have been saying. The positioning of that feature foretold a bit of a northwest shift on 1/5, so we'll see what happens with this one. Guess i need to go back and re read that thread. Did that have a nw shift inside of 60hrs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnesota Meso Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 The positioning of that feature foretold a bit of a northwest shift on 1/5, so we'll see what happens with this one. Could you please comment on what I have been saying about where the surface low and mid level lows should be located visa vi the upper level jet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Little OT, but this current mid atl is a bit stronger and going a lot further north than it looked last night. Maybe this next storm will do the same, or it will go even more SE with the mid atl storm squashing the ridge a bit south. Just thinking out loud and trying to learn why a storm tracks where it does. That question confounds some of the great mets. Don't spend too much time thinking about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerball Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Guess i need to go back and re read that thread. Did that have a nw shift inside of 60hrs? Yes. Inside 48hrs in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue60007 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 I'm feeling an early call of 5 to 8" for LAF. May bump higher if GFS/Euro come in wetter but that's a good star.t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundersnow12 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 No, lets look at the H5 map, the surface low should be just SE of the strongest vort max. Than you have to take a look at were the mid level lows set up say at 700-850 mb, that is really the key as moisture from the warm sector will be evected into those low pressure areas. The 700-925 lows should be slightly north of the surface lows.... Lol no, it shouldn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 I'm feeling an early call of 5 to 8" for LAF. May bump higher if GFS/Euro come in wetter but that's a good star.t Frontogenesis/banding looks fairly impressive and it seems like the NAM has really been keying in on it with differences on placement from run to run. I think it may be onto something as that aspect should be in its wheelhouse. I like that the 00z GFS came in a bit wetter and even it gives us a solid 7-8". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanDe680 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 3.8" with a WWA coming soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago WX Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Doesn't look like much change with the 0z Ukie. Still pretty solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnesota Meso Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Lol no, it shouldn't Lets take a look. H5 vort map, ;the surface low is just SE of the vort max surface low Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Lets take a look. H5 vort map surface low Except that is what he is saying looks fishy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnesota Meso Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Doesn't look like much change with the 0z Ukie. Still pretty solid. Like I said a few days ago, LAF is lock for 60" this year....congrats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago WX Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Like I said a few days ago, LAF is lock for 60" this year....congrats Hopefully. Need to do well with this one, and then it's within earshot...with plenty of time to go. 0z GGEM is in the same spot at 12z Wednesday, compared to its 12z run...but might be a little juicier overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue60007 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Frontogenesis/banding looks fairly impressive and it seems like the NAM has really been keying in on it with differences on placement from run to run. I think it may be onto something as that aspect should be in its wheelhouse. I like that the 00z GFS came in a bit wetter and even it gives us a solid 7-8".Agreed, the potential is definitely there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michsnowfreak Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 After the sloppy mess of yesterday, it seemed like old times where I envied the northern suburbs. But immediately its back to the trend of the season in that I like that Im south of Detroit for this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCNYILWX Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Lets take a look. H5 vort map, ;the surface low is just SE of the vort max surface low The models at times poorly place the surface and upper level features, but do a better job with the upper level pv anomaly. There's been multiple cases where the tip of the hook of the pv anomaly better indicated the surface low placement and was northwest of what the guidance had been indicating, including GHD, November 17th, 10/4/13 (tornado outbreak in NE/IA and blizzard in SD) to name a few. So if this is true in this case, all features would be shifted northwest some, including the h5 low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Decent sized DGZ via NAM BUFKIT. Also seems like there's some potential for banding under the deformation zone. I'll throw 3-5" out as a first call for YYZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnesota Meso Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 The models at times poorly place the surface and upper level features, but do a better job with the upper level pv anomaly. There's been multiple cases where the tip of the hook of the pv anomaly better indicated the surface low placement and was northwest of what the guidance had been indicating, including GHD, November 17th, 10/4/13 (tornado outbreak in NE/IA and blizzard in SD) to name a few. So if this is true in this case, all features would be shifted northwest some, including the h5 low. But how many times should the surface low be located in the base of the hook at the 400-250mb level, this goes back to what someone said that the surface low should be placed there, or close to there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc294 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 GFS Awww...the GFS knows where I live. See the blue "tear-drop-shaped" spot in SE Ohio? LOL Now THAT is the "screw hole" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo6899 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 GGEM gives Det 4-5 hours of light snow then 8 hours of mod-hvy snow. Riding the line for heavy snows. We've had a great yearr but been riding the line a lot this yr. Thinking once we get this current storm out of the way, tomorrow nights runs will let us know better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerball Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 And the GGEM gives us hope yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowstorms Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 GGEM spits out 3-6" for the GTA with the potential for deformation bands to form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 And the GGEM gives us hope yet... Moves the primary into OH/PA vs WV/VA on the GFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclone77 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 See no reason to change my 3-4" call for here/QC based on what I'm seeing tonight. 2-4" might be a smarter call, but I'll stick with 3-4" for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrad08 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Any guesses on where an icing event sets up with this storm? I'm thinking some see at least a half inch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radtechwxman Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 well 0z runs tonight would have only had a very small sampling on the ULL since it was riding along the coast prolly only grazing the upper air networks. looks to be making landfall more now. so 12z runs will tell us a lot and by 0z runs we should pretty much have a track nailed down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimChgo9 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Schwartz was going with a 4" or so for the city proper, with heavier amounts south. I'll say 3" and go with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AppsRunner Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 GGEM is better than the GFS is here. Hopefully it's a sign of more juice up here. Either way LAF looks like they'll rebound nicely from their rain with the last storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWeather Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Anyone have total snowfall numbers from the GGEM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.