jasonli18t Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Great Resource for Model Updates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDMK6GLI Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Quality post like usual he may be a bit off base but if we ALL dig down deep and see how the models have performed outside of 48 hours what he says does hold "some" weight. im not sure of his reputation here but what he said is why im not getting excited till Tuesday even before his statement taking into account model performances this year out of the short range. the models today took a bigger step towards a closed Lp inside the BM that would dump lots of snow for our area, is it going to change still? yes it will maybe not drastically but who knows it might. this isn't 7 days away, only 4.5 days still but things can still change with the pattern we're in. that said this threat is looking better today even down to the coast, lets not go all gung-ho yet until we can see this track/consensus carry over through tomorrow's model suites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 For posterity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB GFI Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 The hardest solution is qpf. Sub 980 to the BM will hav a big precip field and would get deeper as we get closer. Don't focus on that. OBX to CC deepening like that will make many happy. Just see ensembles see the center at obx in or out. They rest will take care of itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 For posterity Reminds me of the February 2010 Snowicane just without the epic blocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbo81 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Reminds me of the February 2010 Snowicane just without the epic blocking. totally agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 The hardest solution is qpf. Sub 980 to the BM will hav a big precip field and would get deeper as we get closer. Don't focus on that. OBX to CC deepening like that will make many happy. Just see ensembles see the center at obx in or out. They rest will take care of itself. It might not have that large of a precip shield. The kicker off to the west limits how far the snow can make it inland, and keeps the low headed on a NNE path. It looks so far like a compact heavy precip area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB GFI Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 It shouldn't. With this upper level evolution, if the storm takes a track inside the benchmark it is likely going to be decently wrapped up and the resulting lift and dynamics will be sufficient for snow away from the immediate coast (probably there too). The one wild card still is the shortwave over the Great Lakes. Not only does that act as a kicker, but it totally kills the cyclones development on the NW side. No CCB, no dynamics, nothing interesting at all if that feature trends stronger or farther east. My only issue with inside obx is it gives us at the coast zero margin for error. Easterlies hurt u for a time. I agree the GLC system and it's speed could offer u enough spacing to come to the BM But for me rather fight one fight not 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 GGEM has a small area of 50mm of snow through NYC/Western LI. So we can all use that as a starting point and hope it gets better from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blizzardo Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 GGEM has a small area of 50mm of snow through NYC/Western LI. So we can all use that as a starting point and hope it gets better from there. For the mathematically impaired... thats over 2 feet of snow..Hahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 You mean in dynamics (temps and coverage of precipitation)? Lol. It was a joke, the GGEM has 50mm or about 2" QPF as snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 GGEM has a small area of 50mm of snow through NYC/Western LI. So we can all use that as a starting point and hope it gets better from there. I guess next run I should be rooting for 100mm of liquid as snow for MBY? If we get another wet snow bomb here there will be a lot of buildings here that will have to worry about the roofs. The snow already has nearly 2" liquid equivalent in it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsPens87 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 It shouldn't. With this upper level evolution, if the storm takes a track inside the benchmark it is likely going to be decently wrapped up and the resulting lift and dynamics will be sufficient for snow away from the immediate coast (probably there too). The one wild card still is the shortwave over the Great Lakes. Not only does that act as a kicker, but it totally kills the cyclones development on the NW side. No CCB, no dynamics, nothing interesting at all if that feature trends stronger or farther east. This is exactly why the QPF on the NW side of the low is just not there. The energy at 500 over the lakes IMO forces some ever so slight "ridging" ahead of itself which brings with it sinking air on the NW side of the developing coastal. The further west that feature stays the better. Any further east and even if this is inside the BM bomb you are looking at a scenario with SN+ for NYC and not much just west Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allsnow Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 You mean in dynamics (temps and coverage of precipitation)? He is being very very sarcastic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 The high pressure holding on longer this run over Northern New England really helped us out with the snowier Euro BM track. It even tries to close off at 500 mb as the low is heading for the BM. Very nice improvements from 0z. Screen shot 2014-02-09 at 1.49.50 PM.png It is really interesting to see the evolution of this system aloft. The northern stream energy essentially splits from a very active and fast flow running west to east through Canada and sinks southward to phase with the remnant southern stream energy. A really intricate process and I suggest nobody get too attached to this threat or any solution at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WE GOT HIM Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 GGEM has a small area of 50mm of snow through NYC/Western LI. So we can all use that as a starting point and hope it gets better from there. Lol what station will broadcast this first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntenseBlizzard2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Lol. It was a joke, the GGEM has 50mm or about 2" QPF as snow. I see. Yeah, that's as good as it could get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 This is exactly why the QPF on the NW side of the low is just not there. The energy at 500 over the lakes IMO forces some ever so slight "ridging" ahead of itself which brings with it sinking air on the NW side of the developing coastal. The further west that feature stays the better. Any further east and even if this is inside the BM bomb you are looking at a scenario with SN+ for NYC and not much just west We have seen this before, too -- some will toss it up for the models being too tight with their precipitation distribution. But in reality it makes perfect sense. Like you said, when you have another mid level trough pressing down the wave spacing becomes really poor. And you have nwly flow on the entire cold conveyor side of the developing system. The models are struggling with not only the amplitude of the phasing trough, but the exact positioning and strength of that shortwave over the Great Lakes. It is pretty cool to see some of the wrapped up solutions though. Would be quite an evolution aloft that we would get to observe. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~fxg1/CMC_12z/f108.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I guess next run I should be rooting for 100mm of liquid as snow for MBY? As you know, now in this forum, the expectations are for the GGEM solution to verify and anything else will be a yawner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monmouth_County_Jacpot Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I am holding my excitement at bay the only think that gets me more excited is that it's only 4 days out as opposed to 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
96blizz Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 We have seen this before, too -- some will toss it up for the models being too tight with their precipitation distribution. But in reality it makes perfect sense. Like you said, when you have another mid level trough pressing down the wave spacing becomes really poor. And you have nwly flow on the entire cold conveyor side of the developing system. The models are struggling with not only the amplitude of the phasing trough, but the exact positioning and strength of that shortwave over the Great Lakes. It is pretty cool to see some of the wrapped up solutions though. Would be quite an evolution aloft that we would get to observe. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~fxg1/CMC_12z/f108.gif Top notch earthlight/JetsPens. Helps us focus on what to watch on all the subsequent model runs. Far too often you hear 'convective feedback' when, in reality, there is a reason the model spit out what it did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 It is really interesting to see the evolution of this system aloft. The northern stream energy essentially splits from a very active and fast flow running west to east through Canada and sinks southward to phase with the remnant southern stream energy. A really intricate process and I suggest nobody get too attached to this threat or any solution at this point. It's interesting how the 12z maintains a westward extension of the ridge back into Maine as most of the high exits east allowing the low to scoot further east than 0z. This would be another rabbit out of the hat storm should it verify as modeled on the 12z Euro since the PNA is pretty negative and the AO is neutral and NAO positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Top notch earthlight/JetsPens. Helps us focus on what to watch on all the subsequent model runs. Far too often you hear 'convective feedback' when, in reality, there is a reason the model spit out what it did... There are some times the models definitely have convective feedback. The two camps on that are the people who throw it up to convective feedback each time, and the other side full of people who doubt it completely. It does exist, it does happen. Just not all the time -- and this is not a scenario where we're seeing it really affect the model output. The northwestern periphery of the cold conveyor belt can really be cut down on these things -- and sometimes you won't even see a big band on the edge, you'll just see crappy precipitation and god awful snow growth on the fringes. You can see on the GFS (which is not the best example given its evolution aloft but I'll use it anyway) that the mid levels are struggling because that system over the Lakes is bearing down. http://climate.cod.edu/data/forecast/GFS/12/NE/gfsNE_700_rhum_102.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weathergun Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 This is exactly why the QPF on the NW side of the low is just not there. The energy at 500 over the lakes IMO forces some ever so slight "ridging" ahead of itself which brings with it sinking air on the NW side of the developing coastal. The further west that feature stays the better. Any further east and even if this is inside the BM bomb you are looking at a scenario with SN+ for NYC and not much just west The kicker can't really be too far east or too far west, for the solution we want here for I-95 corridor. The kicker would keep this from going inland, in major phasing situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 The kicker can't really be too far east or too far west, for the solution we want here for I-95 corridor. The kicker would keep this from going inland, in major phasing situation. Yeah, this is important too. This is a really fragile setup. It starts from the northern stream energy separating from a progressive flow and phasing to the southeast, and ends with that kicker shifting east over time. And there are other nuances in between. So I think it would be wise to take each model solution with a grain of salt and instead pay attention to trends on ensemble guidance. Right now there is pretty decent agreement but we have seen that change before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Hopefully this storm works out for Thu, because after the storm passes the Pacific jet looks to get real ugly real fast. PV sets up over Alaska, and the flow is zonal right off the Pacific thereafter on the Euro. The GGEM however keeps a more amplified flow and colder temps from Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsPens87 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 There are some times the models definitely have convective feedback. The two camps on that are the people who throw it up to convective feedback each time, and the other side full of people who doubt it completely. It does exist, it does happen. Just not all the time -- and this is not a scenario where we're seeing it really affect the model output. The northwestern periphery of the cold conveyor belt can really be cut down on these things -- and sometimes you won't even see a big band on the edge, you'll just see crappy precipitation and god awful snow growth on the fringes. You can see on the GFS (which is not the best example given its evolution aloft but I'll use it anyway) that the mid levels are struggling because that system over the Lakes is bearing down. http://climate.cod.edu/data/forecast/GFS/12/NE/gfsNE_700_rhum_102.gif The interesting thing is that all winter we have been worrying about wave spacing but that was with mainly northern stream systems, however with this one we have a good deal of southern stream energy which tells me this could indeed bomb the way some guidance is showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
96blizz Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 There are some times the models definitely have convective feedback. The two camps on that are the people who throw it up to convective feedback each time, and the other side full of people who doubt it completely. It does exist, it does happen. Just not all the time -- and this is not a scenario where we're seeing it really affect the model output. The northwestern periphery of the cold conveyor belt can really be cut down on these things -- and sometimes you won't even see a big band on the edge, you'll just see crappy precipitation and god awful snow growth on the fringes. You can see on the GFS (which is not the best example given its evolution aloft but I'll use it anyway) that the mid levels are struggling because that system over the Lakes is bearing down. http://climate.cod.edu/data/forecast/GFS/12/NE/gfsNE_700_rhum_102.gif And it just so happens to be over my house! Ha! Either way, fun to track and each of these systems is a learning opportunity for someone like me. Even if it doesn't go exactly how I want, I want to understand why, so that for subsequent systems, I can help look for the intricacies of 'why' and not just claim something like that. Helpful. Really. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsPens87 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 The kicker can't really be too far east or too far west, for the solution we want here for I-95 corridor. The kicker would keep this from going inland, in major phasing situation. The kicker depending on its exact placement could and will have a multitude of different effects on the coastal. Strictly speaking from the precip shield standpoint, the kicker is THE reason why there is no more NWrly development of that shield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 And it just so happens to be over my house! Ha! Either way, fun to track and each of these systems is a learning opportunity for someone like me. Even if it doesn't go exactly how I want, I want to understand why, so that for subsequent systems, I can help look for the intricacies of 'why' and not just claim something like that. Helpful. Really. Thanks. I think it's about time we warn the public of this rapidly approaching threat and post some snow maps to Facebook and Twitter. What say you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.