Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,609
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

March 2-4 Snowstorm Potential Part 2


REDMK6GLI

Recommended Posts

I am going to say this one last time and then focus on my other forum where there is far less banter that is not backed up via meteorological knowledge:

The piece. Of energy. In question. Has not yet reached the West Coast of the United States. THEREFORE, sampling of this energy cannot fully take place within the models until tonight's 00z. A shift within one GFS run truly cannot displace everyone's belief in the storm nor discount the previous runs. PLEASE keep posts within the realm of meteorologically, backed-up ideas.

There are most assuredly better ways to address this.

How about the energy to be sample isn't the only piece of the puzzle. If the PV is too strong it may not matter what the energy looks like once fully sampled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You look at what's going on and you use your head. You have a stationary front somewhere to our south and the PV pressing down overhead. Their will inevitably be a band of heavy snow somewhere in between, and that is indeed in question. But it's the setup that generates an extremely tight north to south precipitation gradient on each side of the band. Furthermore, if we do get somewhat of a deformation banding axis, we'll likely see areas of subsidence on the northern and southern edges. On the 12z GFS anyone from I-80 northward is dangerously close to being caught in the subsidence.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to say this one last time and then focus on my other forum where there is far less banter that is not backed up via meteorological knowledge:

 

The piece. Of energy. In question. Has not yet reached the West Coast of the United States. THEREFORE, sampling of this energy cannot fully take place within the models until tonight's 00z. A shift within one GFS run truly cannot displace everyone's belief in the storm nor discount the previous runs. PLEASE keep posts within the realm of meteorologically, backed-up ideas. 

CoastalWx pretty much debunked the whole "not sampled yet" theory. We have very good remote sensing so just because the shortwave hasn't made it onto U.S. soil doesn't mean the solutions we're seeing are garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CoastalWx pretty much debunked the whole "not sampled yet" theory. We have very good remote sensing so just because the shortwave hasn't made it onto U.S. soil doesn't mean the solutions we're seeing are garbage.

The boxing day blizzard reallt added fire to the sampling arguement that is for sure. Every storm now is expected to have some miracle trend almost :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are most assuredly better ways to address this.

How about the energy to be sample isn't the only piece of the puzzle. If the PV is too strong it may not matter what the energy looks like once fully sampled.

 

Sure, I'll address that. The piece of energy being sampled better will result in figuring out its interaction WITH the northern stream, along with the arctic air mass. Knowing it's interaction with the northern stream will account for knowing how strong this piece is when it arrives here, and how suppressed, if at all, it will be by that arctic air mass. It is VERY important. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CoastalWx pretty much debunked the whole "not sampled yet" theory. We have very good remote sensing so just because the shortwave hasn't made it onto U.S. soil doesn't mean the solutions we're seeing are garbage.

 

It's not a matter of them being 'garbage' --- it's a matter of WHY you are seeing such Inconsistency with the models. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CoastalWx pretty much debunked the whole "not sampled yet" theory. We have very good remote sensing so just because the shortwave hasn't made it onto U.S. soil doesn't mean the solutions we're seeing are garbage.

 

Nothing obviously beats good hard data...but the sampling argument can be overused sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont they have things called bouys and also AF recon as well? I can understand the poor sampling in canada part but the pacific has some pretty good sampling especially near shore i think

I mean, I don't fully understand the principles behind NWP (it'd be naive to assume I knew much of anything about it), and to be fair weather recon flights are exceedingly rare in the Eastern Pacific, but there is an immense network of remote sensing all over the place. A few extra radiosondes might ensure you're not missing some anomaly with significant downstream implications, but they're not the miracle cure for suboptimal model performance (or, perhaps more disappointingly, undesirable solutions for your back yard).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, I'll address that. The piece of energy being sampled better will result in figuring out its interaction WITH the northern stream, along with the arctic air mass. Knowing it's interaction with the northern stream will account for knowing how strong this piece is when it arrives here, and how suppressed, if at all, it will be by that arctic air mass. It is VERY important.

Appreciate the civil response. My earlier comment was that major shifts as we get closer are cause for concern for those who want snow on either "edge" of the spectrum.

You can disagree, but I think the technology we have is sufficient enough to give is a good idea of what the storm will look like before being on land.

Perhaps it's a perception thing versus 100% science.

If I'm about to buy a home in 30 days and mortgage rates spike, I'm going to be worried!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appreciate the civil response. My earlier comment was that major shifts as we get closer are cause for concern for those who want snow on either "edge" of the spectrum.

You can disagree, but I think the technology we have is sufficient enough to give is a good idea of what the storm will look like before being on land.

Perhaps it's a perception thing versus 100% science.

If I'm about to buy a home in 30 days and mortgage rates spike, I'm going to be worried!

 

Lol. Yes, I can understand that. However, this really is more about science. And any MET will tell you that getting on-land sampling of piece of energy coming off the Pacific IS critical in gaining a more accurate forecast. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the theme (progressive/cold/confluent) of this season there is far more risk of this being too far south/cold for most of us, than too far north/warm. I think the chances of a big event go down dramatically north of 41N. Extreme southern New England and especially northern Mid Atlantic look best here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from HM:

 

Between 48-72hr, watch the 500mb plots over Ontario-Quebec. The GGEM makes this wave into a very elongated / assertive wave that rapidly lifts "round 1" and then suppresses "round 2" ... more of a frontal look. The GFS is more consolidated / not as deep with this wave, but does have it. That seems to be the key difference here. The specifics of the storm itself are irrelevant.          

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You look at what's going on and you use your head. You have a stationary front somewhere to our south and the PV pressing down overhead. Their will inevitably be a band of heavy snow somewhere in between, and that is indeed in question. But it's the setup that generates an extremely tight north to south precipitation gradient on each side of the band. Furthermore, if we do get somewhat of a deformation banding axis, we'll likely see areas of subsidence on the northern and southern edges. On the 12z GFS anyone from I-80 northward is dangerously close to being caught in the subsidence.  

If you compare this to 2/6/10, the only WAA event like this I can think of that fringed/missed large parts of the area, the PV then was much further south, just NE of Maine, and in a position to suppress the flow too much. Although the PV now is deeper, it is forecast to be significantly further north than that one was. The shortwave now is weaker than that one was, but the confluence zone over the Northeast this time is nothing like that was. Most of northern and central New England had mid level winds from the NW then, funneling in huge amounts of dry air. The flow now looks west to east, and would permit more moisture north. This looks much more similar aloft to early Feb 1994, which had heavy snow well into New England. The PV was a lot further north then than 2/6/10, and moisture was able to penetrate very far north. So I think the panicking about suppression is unwarranted. If the Euro goes south we can have a discussion, but I doubt given the 500mb pattern that it's a real danger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...