REDMK6GLI Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 This thread has become unbearable to read again. Too much fussing over track and temps and the NAM at hr 84. Some of the analysis, and I use that term loosely, is god awful. You would have to be in Suffolk County to have any chance of a changeover. if you take todays runs in general the only locations that would have mixing/changeover issues with a track from OBX-BM and wrapping up almost closing off/closing off @ H5 would be S. NJ and E. LI. its going to have a boatload of moisture and when it deepens rapidly it will also be forming a CCB as well. MECS signal is there yanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 The NAM looks great at the surface and H5. If you don't think so you need to look again. IMO, it shows a risk of a changeover case, especially if the trough goes negative. This run seems to be a candidate for the storm's tracking near or across eastern Long Island and then across eastern New England. Fortunately, there's still time to work out the details and we're not at the NAM's better verification range. The general idea of a possible moderate/high qpf event with at least some accumulation of snow is increasing in support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allsnow Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Fwiw the nam is phasing in a piece of the PV, some really fresh cold air just north of us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsPens87 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Now to me, the NAM may actually be suffering from convective feedback. The batch of "overrunning " precip that it has on the northern edge of the SFC low (the correct SFC low looking at the H5 charts) becomes strong enough that the NAM thinks it should develop a coastal SFC low in response to that. You can see this error ensuing between 66-72 hours. Looking at other guidance this is incorrect and even looking at the NAM H5 charts itself this is incorrect. The NAM in turn has a double barreled coastal low which makes for a "warmer" solution for the NErn corridor. This run is flawed and I would not put much if any stock into its SFC depictions. http://mag.ncep.noaa.gov/Image.php?fhr=072ℑ=data%2Fnam%2F18%2Fnam_namer_072_500_vort_ht.gif&model=nam&area=namer¶m=500_vort_ht&group=Model+Guidance&imageSize=M http://mag.ncep.noaa.gov/Image.php?fhr=069ℑ=data%2Fnam%2F18%2Fnam_namer_069_10m_wnd_precip.gif&model=nam&area=namer¶m=10m_wnd_precip&group=Model+Guidance&imageSize=M The ONLY SFC low that should be there is the one correctly along the FL panhandle. There is no energy to support an E coast SFC low yet. With THAT said, the H5 charts are looking beautiful between 81 and 84 hours. As JM said the amount of energy rounding that trough screams for a coastal bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkyfork Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 when does the nam at 84 hours not suffer from convective feedback? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doorman Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 OPC is on board ... extrap down to 972mb EST http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/Atl_tab.shtml ESRL precip mean http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/ens/ens.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Now to me, the NAM may actually be suffering from convective feedback. The batch of "overrunning " precip that it has on the northern edge of the SFC low (the correct SFC low looking at the H5 charts) becomes strong enough that the NAM thinks it should develop a coastal SFC low in response to that. You can see this error ensuing between 66-72 hours. Looking at other guidance this is incorrect and even looking at the NAM H5 charts itself this is incorrect. The NAM in turn has a double barreled coastal low which makes for a "warmer" solution for the NErn corridor. This run is flawed and I would not put much if any stock into its SFC depictions. http://mag.ncep.noaa.gov/Image.php?fhr=072ℑ=data%2Fnam%2F18%2Fnam_namer_072_500_vort_ht.gif&model=nam&area=namer¶m=500_vort_ht&group=Model+Guidance&imageSize=M http://mag.ncep.noaa.gov/Image.php?fhr=069ℑ=data%2Fnam%2F18%2Fnam_namer_069_10m_wnd_precip.gif&model=nam&area=namer¶m=10m_wnd_precip&group=Model+Guidance&imageSize=M The ONLY SFC low that should be there is the one correctly along the FL panhandle. There is no energy to support an E coast SFC low yet. With THAT said, the H5 charts are looking beautiful between 81 and 84 hours. As JM said the amount of energy rounding that trough screams for a coastal bomb. NAM's not close to reliable range yet. The Euro and ensembles in lockstep is a good sign, but it's too soon to lock anything in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWCCraig Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I used the word verbatim. It's the 84hr NAM, just saying if it's solution were to continue, there could be a period mixing/changeover in NYC S&E. Doubt it verifies (I never said it would, don't know why some are upset), this should be a mostly all snow event for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weathergun Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Now to me, the NAM may actually be suffering from convective feedback. The batch of "overrunning " precip that it has on the northern edge of the SFC low (the correct SFC low looking at the H5 charts) becomes strong enough that the NAM thinks it should develop a coastal SFC low in response to that. You can see this error ensuing between 66-72 hours. Looking at other guidance this is incorrect and even looking at the NAM H5 charts itself this is incorrect. The NAM in turn has a double barreled coastal low which makes for a "warmer" solution for the NErn corridor. This run is flawed and I would not put much if any stock into its SFC depictions. http://mag.ncep.noaa.gov/Image.php?fhr=072ℑ=data%2Fnam%2F18%2Fnam_namer_072_500_vort_ht.gif&model=nam&area=namer¶m=500_vort_ht&group=Model+Guidance&imageSize=M http://mag.ncep.noaa.gov/Image.php?fhr=069ℑ=data%2Fnam%2F18%2Fnam_namer_069_10m_wnd_precip.gif&model=nam&area=namer¶m=10m_wnd_precip&group=Model+Guidance&imageSize=M The ONLY SFC low that should be there is the one correctly along the FL panhandle. There is no energy to support an E coast SFC low yet. With THAT said, the H5 charts are looking beautiful between 81 and 84 hours. As JM said the amount of energy rounding that trough screams for a coastal bomb. The NAM also separate robust looking H5 vort near Delmarva, that might causing the first low to intensify as well. I don't see anything that strong, on other models. I do agree though, everything else H5 looks good for coastal bomb: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsPens87 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 when does the nam at ANY hours not suffer from convective feedback? Fixed for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 As expected the SREF still show a tremendous amount of variance at this range. I think we really need to be aware of the potential for major shifts in model guidance in regards to this storm even as we get inside 72 hours. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~fxg1/SREF21500US_15z/f87.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDMK6GLI Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Fixed for you beat me to it! but I agree with your previous statement a rapidly deepening Lp coming up the coast look likely. track ideally would be from OBX to the BM, I don't think this will get to the tip of LI 18Z GFS has initiated folks.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsPens87 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 As expected the SREF still show a tremendous amount of variance at this range. I think we really need to be aware of the potential for major shifts in model guidance in regards to this storm even as we get inside 72 hours. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~fxg1/SREF21500US_15z/f87.gif Agreed, though the SREF 500 mean does look pretty nice there and actually falls in line nicely with other guidance at this point in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDMK6GLI Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 As expected the SREF still show a tremendous amount of variance at this range. I think we really need to be aware of the potential for major shifts in model guidance in regards to this storm even as we get inside 72 hours. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~fxg1/SREF21500US_15z/f87.gif this is really starting to look like a phased coastal bomb I have to say but with no ideally placed HP its going to come down to timing of the phase to make as many people happy on this board as possible. I totally agree that they're may still be some sizeable shifts in strength/track till even inside 72 hours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 The GFS looks a little better so far in every aspect surrounding the system, but nothing too extreme. We'll have to see if it has an effect on the eventual outcome of the storm system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+SNfreak21 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 The GFS looks a little better so far in every aspect surrounding the system, but nothing too extreme. We'll have to see if it has an effect on the eventual outcome of the storm system. Doesn't the GFS has an issue with southern stream systems? Which is why the GFS has done better this year with the northern stream clipper storms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDMK6GLI Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 500mb at 72 hours looking very good thus far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WE GOT HIM Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Ridge looks better out west @ 72, and its digging a little more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 GFS keying in on the last vort at H5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 GFS looks better..not sure it'll show a big hit but it has improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
96blizz Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 At 75, the low is closer to the SC coast than the 18z at 81. This should wind up West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 It's still a mess a loft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
96blizz Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 At 84, don't think this gets it done, but another step (rather decent one) to the Euro solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WE GOT HIM Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 At 84, don't think this gets it done, but another step (rather decent one) to the Euro solution. yea deff another step there, it did not go negative in time but at this point I would rather see it look like this on the gfs esp this winter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WE GOT HIM Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Kicker is much weaker this run though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
96blizz Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Yeah. The kicker (thanks earthlight/JetsPen) is weaker and is centered in Southern MN as opposed to Northern Wisconsin (which the GGEM had). Is there also a N/S component to track of the kicker out in the midwest? It seems weaker and West on the GFS, but the result is still OTS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I suspect the GFS is just up to it's typical BS. The guidance overwhelmingly points towards a significant coastal storm now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDMK6GLI Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I suspect the 18z GFS is just up to it's typical BS. The guidance overwhelmingly points towards a significant coastal storm now. fixed buddy it improved but the changes just didn't equate to what it should've showed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Doesn't the GFS has an issue with southern stream systems? Which is why the GFS has done better this year with the northern stream clipper storms The GFS is usually too weak and far east with southern stream systems. It took forever for it to pick up on the storm last February while the euro had it run after run. http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-us-weather-prediction-computer-gap.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 fixed buddy it improved but the changes just didn't equate to what it should've showed The NAM sharpens the trough and looks great at H5. The GFS is sloppy and much less amplified. Given the Euro and it's ensembles it's easy to toss the GFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.