jm1220 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 LI is in a good spot for this one. There is no piece of guidance that does not give LI at least 3"+ of snow right now for the western sections and 6"+ for the Eastern sections. IMO, this is a classic LI and SNE storm with a very tight cutoff west of EWR. It's still far enough out that there are bound to be surprises somewhere. I could see a tucked in monster working out or a too fast and out to sea low that grazes the Cape. We just have to wait and see this weekend how all of these features resolve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 It's still far enough out that there are bound to be surprises somewhere. I could see a tucked in monster working out or a too fast and out to sea low that grazes the Cape. We just have to wait and see this weekend how all of these features resolve. Agree strongly, besides what I discussed on the last page when you really break it down to simple meteorology and look at the H5 orientation and evolution, it is very exciting at this range. We'll see where it goes from here.. http://mp1.met.psu.edu/~fxg1/AVN_6z/f120.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDMK6GLI Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 It's still far enough out that there are bound to be surprises somewhere. I could see a tucked in monster working out or a too fast and out to sea low that grazes the Cape. We just have to wait and see this weekend how all of these features resolve. We would want a track of BM or just inside for big snows on the coast. A tucked LP would jackpot inland areas and have noticably lower accumulations toward coastal locals. Given the progression of the pattern i think this storm is either a BM or OTS, i would be shocked if this was a coastal hugger with the pattern we are in JM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WintersGrasp Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I really think that this is going to be all or nothing here. I think there is a higher chance of a major snow than a light to moderate snow, as well as a higher chance of pretty much nothing than a light to moderate snow. Odds favor southern New England moreso than us, but we are still very much in the game here Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 The control run almost tried to split into two lows at hour 120 before correcting back into one low and bombing out as the energy phases in fully. We need this to phase in faster so that it can amplify closer to the coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 you do not want a tucked in to the coast low on March 25th - be glad its not showing that YET but the March 28 -29 1984 analog low I posted last night is still a possibility that one was close to the coast and too strong and NYC did not get as much snow as it could have if the low was further east In this pattern you're really worrying about precip type issues? Even the solutions yesterday that had the low almost on top of NYC showed snow all the way to the coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 We would want a track of BM or just inside for big snows on the coast. A tucked LP would jackpot inland areas and have noticably lower accumulations toward coastal locals. Given the progression of the pattern i think this storm is either a BM or OTS, i would be shocked if this was a coastal hugger with the pattern we are in JM. If the southern stream is slow enough and the pattern amplified enough, the phase could work out early enough for a west of the BM track. I'd just think it's not a likely outcome right now. I'd agree that we're in a better position than places well west of the city, but there's still a very long way to go. At this point so late in the season, I'm in "go big or go home" mode where I'd just get annoyed at a minor or moderate snow event. If this comes I hope it's a crusher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JERSEYSNOWROB Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 In case you missed HM's thoughts: Things I keep reading that are incorrect:1. The double barrel structure means the model is incorrect.2. There's errors with the track because of convection.3. The out to sea tracks are due to only the lack of phasing.4. The precip will have a tight edge because strong UVM must be compensated by DVM.5. The seasonal trends means..."fill-in"It's like these forecasters have never seen a nor'easter before. If convective issues were involved--if anything--would produce a further west track if removed not east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JERSEYSNOWROB Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 More from HM!! Three reasons why you shouldn't dismiss the storm yet:1. Despite the weekend wave shunting the baroclinic zone for Tuesday, it acts as a temporary 50-50 low despite the lack of blocking. This thing about "no blocking...out to sea" is dumb. IF it goes out to sea, it's not because of the "lack of blocking and progressive flow." What do these people need to see on a model to not say progressive flow? A 2009-10 type of block?!?2. The weak mid level disturbance just out ahead of the amplifying AJ/PJ phase initiates cyclogenesis on a frontal boundary pushed S/E by this weekend's wave. While this could be the make or break for our area, the details with these things can change significantly still.3. The jet structure, AJ-PJ phase that ultimately becomes a triple phase and the extent of vorticity advection are extremely impressive. This is why every run of every model shows some kind of bomb. Amplifying comma heads are not easily modeled... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Since we're inside of 5 days now, lets put all of the technical non-banter discussion in here regarding this upcoming threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Guys lets put all of the technical discussion starting with today's 12z suite in here http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/43266-model-tenchnial-discussion-threat-325-326/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongBeachSurfFreak Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 you do not want a tucked in to the coast low on March 25th - be glad its not showing that YET but the March 28 -29 1984 analog low I posted last night is still a possibility that one was close to the coast and too strong and NYC did not get as much snow as it could have if the low was furtrher east94 mph gust on Martha's Vineyard! There haven't been to many nor'easters that have produced winds of that magnitude. So to even use that as an analog says allot. We are really going to have to be in the sweet spot for big snow. April 97 and March 94 are good examples of NYC being a bit to warm. A few weeks earlier and a couple degrees cooler and either would have been historic snow wise. At this point it's looking like major coastal impacts are likely regardless if we see snow locally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weathergun Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Agree strongly, besides what I discussed on the last page when you really break it down to simple meteorology and look at the H5 orientation and evolution, it is very exciting at this range. We'll see where it goes from here.. http://mp1.met.psu.edu/~fxg1/AVN_6z/f120.gif Normally that setup would have more snow western side. But most of us wind up on NVA region of the vort max. We are in the left-rear quad of the upper-level jet too. Which means the air is sinking over us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 94 mph gust on Martha's Vineyard! There haven't been to many nor'easters that have produced winds of that magnitude. So to even use that as an analog says allot. We are really going to have to be in the sweet spot for a snow. April 97 and March 94 are good examples of NYC being a bit to warm. A coupe weeks earlier and a couple degrees cooler and either would have been historic snow wise. At this point it's looking like major coastal impacts are likely regardless if we see snow locally. April 1997 should have been a lot more snow for NYC but the mesoscale banding ended up too far west. I think parts of central/southern NJ had a foot of snow from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yankeex777 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Allow me to quote Ray, who is quoting Rainshadow. WRT to the convective feedback, double lows... Tony (Rainshadow) has posted elsewhere, that he believes that the "tucked in" models (12Z Euro and 0Z GGEM) are suffering badly from convective feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSkiesFading Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 More from HM!! Three reasons why you shouldn't dismiss the storm yet: 1. Despite the weekend wave shunting the baroclinic zone for Tuesday, it acts as a temporary 50-50 low despite the lack of blocking. This thing about "no blocking...out to sea" is dumb. IF it goes out to sea, it's not because of the "lack of blocking and progressive flow." What do these people need to see on a model to not say progressive flow? A 2009-10 type of block?!? 2. The weak mid level disturbance just out ahead of the amplifying AJ/PJ phase initiates cyclogenesis on a frontal boundary pushed S/E by this weekend's wave. While this could be the make or break for our area, the details with these things can change significantly still. 3. The jet structure, AJ-PJ phase that ultimately becomes a triple phase and the extent of vorticity advection are extremely impressive. This is why every run of every model shows some kind of bomb. Amplifying comma heads are not easily modeled... Thanks for posting his thoughts here. He's one of the best for sure. So if I'm reading #3 correctly, this event would be a triple phaser? I've seen 1 or 2 other posters mention it, but haven't seen too much talk of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazzo83 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 If that low can tap into this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morris Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 What, if anything can be gleaned from how the NAM will handle the first 84 hours (NAM sucking aside)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Allow me to quote Ray, who is quoting Rainshadow. WRT to the convective feedback, double lows... Seems to be some differences in opinion, HM says that a solution with less convective feedback would argue for a further NW track. In any event, I was attempting to keep posts like these in the other thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSkiesFading Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Seems to be some differences in opinion, HM says that a solution with less convective feedback would argue for a further NW track. In any event, I was attempting to keep posts like these in the other thread. FYI, that's not what HM was saying. He said if anything, convective feedback would be causing a more tucked in solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 What, if anything can be gleaned from how the NAM will handle the first 84 hours (NAM sucking aside)? The NAM can be somewhat useful here, but it's a day too early. You want to see it go nutz with the amplitude of the western ridge and come Sunday you want it to show an inland runner. If the 84hr NAM shows an offshore track or a track near the benchmark you can almost guarantee that this is going to miss east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 A lot of it seems to be the speed of the southern disturbance. If it can slow down a little, it can allow for an earlier phase with an amplified solution and allow for a tucked in low. If that disturbance is too fast, it will phase too late and push the baroclinic zone off the coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 FYI, that's not what HM was saying. He said if anything, convective feedback would be causing a more tucked in solution. Where? In case you missed HM's thoughts: Things I keep reading that are incorrect: 1. The double barrel structure means the model is incorrect. 2. There's errors with the track because of convection. 3. The out to sea tracks are due to only the lack of phasing. 4. The precip will have a tight edge because strong UVM must be compensated by DVM. 5. The seasonal trends means..."fill-in" It's like these forecasters have never seen a nor'easter before. If convective issues were involved--if anything--would produce a further west track if removed not east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Here is exactly what HM had to say regarding Mt. Holly, FWIW, dtk (WPC met) agrees with his thoughts. The Philadelphia-area forecasters for every event this year find a way to suggest that it will not happen. I'm not saying they are wrong in this case or right, but it's annoying and their reasoning is terrible.If convective issues were involved--if anything--would produce a further west track if removed not east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyblizz44 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 April 1997 should have been a lot more snow for NYC but the mesoscale banding ended up too far west. I think parts of central/southern NJ had a foot of snow from that. and by the way there was ZERO snow forcast for the KNYC before the storm and as it became clear the storm was closer to MA coast and the backbanding built in WSW DID ultimatly go up for KNYC for 6-10 inches. we never got it & I Think here in Queens I wound up with 3 inches or so with epreceip going to rain when it lightened up but some of the biggets chucnks of snow falling from the sky when it was heavy. Yes my memory is weird like that when it comes to memorable snowstorms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Couldn't have put this better myself... I don't think it's right tossing a solution for "convective feedback" because in these late season latent heat bombs it could be real, but I think it's wise to not exactly role with that solution and just sort of realize that models may struggle with the track because of any convection facilitating low pressure development. The euro sometimes does this with intense lows only to sort of correct itself, but I also can't recall any late season winter storms like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyblizz44 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Thanks for posting his thoughts here. He's one of the best for sure. So if I'm reading #3 correctly, this event would be a triple phaser? I've seen 1 or 2 other posters mention it, but haven't seen too much talk of it. I remember the good ol days at Eastern'. HM was was fabulous consistently. Hope he finds his way here. Also I recollect a phenomonal forcaster called Typhoon Tip. His methodolgy and tech analysis were legendary before PD II Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Here is exactly what HM had to say regarding Mt. Holly, FWIW, dtk (WPC met) agrees with his thoughts. Convective feedback might overdo the southern stream feature and vortmax and if it is too fast, it would erroneously form and track the low too far east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Convective feedback might overdo the southern stream feature and vortmax and if it is too fast, it would erroneously form and track the low too far east. This hobby wouldn't be any fun without huge uncertainly five days out. It's what makes this so much fun. That and the fact that in this day and age of technology, mother nature still has a way of humbling us all. The 12z NAM seems like it will continue to amplify the ULL energy south of Alaska enough to spike the western ridge, and at this stage, that's about all we can ask for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JERSEYSNOWROB Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I remember the good ol days at Eastern'. HM was was fabulous consistently. Hope he finds his way here. Also I recollect a phenomonal forcaster called Typhoon Tip. His methodolgy and tech analysis were legendary before PD II Well HM isn't definitively calling anything yet, just laying out the reasoning as to what 'could' happen. Typhoon Tip is still here and posts up in the New England threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.