SleetStormNJ Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I don't think the RGEM depiction is all that bad. People need to stop living and dying by snowmaps. Storms of this magnitude draw their own snowfall maps. I'm out for the night. Fully expect the UKIE and EURO to hold steady and tender the weenie hearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 NAM has been pretty much consistent with that same track though... 3 runs in a row. along with a slight eastward shift each run. can't just say 'throw it out' because it's what u want. There are solid reasons to throw it out. It's not wishcasting. Aloft, the storm looks even more favorable with the low closing off south of NYC. That should be more than enough to bring heavy snow into the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlsterCountySnowZ Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Can everyone stop freaking out over models that have been east to begin with.. Every model isn't gonna magically show what the euro has, there's a reason the euros praised, hop off the bridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkyfork Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 The serious banding on the RGEM is further east. Considering that its last run was also far east (of the euro), we would have liked it to trend west, not the opposite. Hoping for the best with the euro, but expecting the worst. Kinda gets to a point where you can't toss out every other model....Or can you ? lollooks like convective feedback problems with the two low centers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazwoper Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 looks like convective feedback problems with the two low centers Yeah, I have a very hard time believing a low of that magnitude (captured no less) with such a spotty QPF output. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delijoe Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 looks like convective feedback problems with the two low centers Does only the Euro know how to correctly handle convective feedback? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjr231 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Looks like multiple lows on the Rgem to me like the NAM had. That can't be right can it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 The RGEM doesn't look bad from the city on east. And the low ends up west of the benchmark and spins around east of Montauk. People need to calm down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkyfork Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Does only the Euro know how to correctly handle convective feedback?any model can have convective feedback... the issue is that these highly mesoscale models can take a small feature and run away with it. that's why they're only useful in the very short range Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WintersGrasp Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 looks like convective feedback problems with the two low centers What would cause so many of the models to have these convective feedback issues ? Originally, the NWS said that the euro had those issues (maybe because it was very favorable and a crazy solution?), but then seemed to back up on their thinking with that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sn0waddict Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 RGEM keeps on creating a superband in SNE, much like Nemo. Definitely something to watch for on the meso models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 looks like convective feedback problems with the two low centers Compared to 12z at 36 hours it's weaker and further East by quite a bit. But there is some second weakening surface low pressure like 500 miles East. Hard to tell on the B/W charts but it looks like it's less than 20MM for NYC which is around 0.75". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Yeah, I have a very hard time believing a low of that magnitude (captured no less) with such a spotty QPF output. Models are going to have a very hard time resolving these things. It's a frequent problem with especially mesoscale models close into the event. But the deep convection robbing the main low is very infrequent in actuality. I remember even the day before the 12/19/09 storm and Boxing Day we had these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allsnow Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 NAM has been pretty much consistent with that same track though... 3 runs in a row. along with a slight eastward shift each run. can't just say 'throw it out' because it's what u want. How has the nam been consistent when it has shifted east the last three runs? This is the same model that had 14 inches for me 24 hrs out last sat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil882 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Looks like multiple lows on the Rgem to me like the NAM had. That can't be right can it? A double barrel low is certainly possible... keep in mind the solutions both the NAM and RGEM are projecting were within the realm of possibilities provided by the ECMWF EPS. This is more than just convective feedback... I've been looking at the initial conditions of the current clipper and it looks like its been moving a little faster than expected. For the best possible phase, we don't want this feature to be moving as quickly so the next shortwave can capture it further west and hence allow for surface cyclogenesis to occur further west. The trends aren't good because it looks like the last 12-18 hour forecasts were a bit too slow with the primary shortwave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGoose69 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 The RGEM took a step forward as far as its banding and precip signature over or near NYC this run without a doubt. Also look at it for the overnight into tomorrow, it seems to be the only model catching onto the current radar trends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 RGEM keeps on creating a superband in SNE, much like Nemo. Definitely something to watch for on the meso models. There's very likely to be a megaband somewhere (or somewheres). The moisture influx coming into this is crazy. Look at the 850mb jet anomalies (6SD above normal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleetStormNJ Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 The RGEM took a step forward as far as its banding and precip signature over or near NYC this run without a doubt. Also look at it for the overnight into tomorrow, it seems to be the only model catching onto the current radar trends. It shows a pretty consistent batch of moderate to heavier snow over northern/NE/eastern NJ for a good period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleetStormNJ Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 A double barrel low is certainly possible... keep in mind the solutions both the NAM and RGEM are projecting were within the realm of possibilities provided by the ECMWF EPS. This is more than a convective feedback issue... I've been looking at the initial conditions of the current clipper and it looks like its been moving a little faster than expected. For the best possible phase, we don't want to be moving as quickly so the next shortwave can capture it further west and hence allow for surface cyclogenesis to occur further west. The trends aren't good because it looks like the last 12-18 hour forecasts was a bit too slow with the primary shortwave. Interesting. Something to keep an eye through tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ground Scouring Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Yes but that would be roughly 25-50% of what the NWS is currently forecasting for NYC. That would be a significant bust. Does the +NAO/+AO pattern (with indices currently rising as well) have anything to do with the fact that the models underestimated the speed of the primary shortwave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil882 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 The precip shield should be extending out further west though and there was a tidbit about that in the discussion earlier today. The Euro could be correct because it doesn't have any convective feedback and there's a better extension of the precip shield west given the closed lows and the look aloft. The Euro is still susceptible to convective feedback since it uses a cumulus parameterization (as do all models > 5 km). However, the ECMWF cumulus parameterization (Tidke scheme) is considered superior to the GFS (Simplified Arakawa Schubert) and NAM (Kain Fritsch) cumulus parameterizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnoSki14 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 All things considered what were the amounts given from both the Nam and Rgem for the NYC metro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WintersGrasp Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 A double barrel low is certainly possible... keep in mind the solutions both the NAM and RGEM are projecting were within the realm of possibilities provided by the ECMWF EPS. This is more than just convective feedback... I've been looking at the initial conditions of the current clipper and it looks like its been moving a little faster than expected. For the best possible phase, we don't want to be moving as quickly so the next shortwave can capture it further west and hence allow for surface cyclogenesis to occur further west. The trends aren't good because it looks like the last 12-18 hour forecasts was a bit too slow with the primary shortwave. Thanks for the info (that I wish it was not that bad!).....That would explain why we are getting the snow earlier over and also why the models are trending toward such a bad solution for us. At this rate, i'd be shocked if the GFS shows great solution, and especially if the euro continues its crush fest for us and doesn't move it much further east.....Seems like it could be turning into a 6-12" storm for NNJ/NYC, you think ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nygmen Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Thanks for the info (that I wish it was not that bad!).....That would explain why we are getting the snow earlier over and also why the models are trending toward such a bad solution for us. At this rate, i'd be shocked if the GFS shows great solution, and especially if the euro continues its crush fest for us and doesn't move it much further east.....Seems like it could be turning into a 6-12" storm for NNJ/NYC, you think ? TBF...it seems to be the other disturbance is slightly faster as well though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SACRUS Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 1/26 00Z Summary NYC : QPF (snowfall) SREF: 1.10 - 1.40 (>18") NAM: 0.85 - 1.15 (>12") REM: 0.81 - 1.05 (>11") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGoose69 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 been trying to see the NAM on the NWS site but seems stuck on HR 27. Are others having this issue? Do you think they will rerun it or is it just me? There is a major outage somewhere because half the 03z observations nationwide are missing too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Thanks for the info (that I wish it was not that bad!).....That would explain why we are getting the snow earlier over and also why the models are trending toward such a bad solution for us. At this rate, i'd be shocked if the GFS shows great solution, and especially if the euro continues its crush fest for us and doesn't move it much further east.....Seems like it could be turning into a 6-12" storm for NNJ/NYC, you think ? I doubt the Euro would be this wrong so close in but I could see an east adjustment for sure. To me though the RGEM actually looked better than prior runs and the NAM seemed weird overall, which is common. Tonight if the Euro holds firm again it would be very hard for me to see the weaker/east camp being right. I'd say right now 80% chance NYC gets over 12", 50% chance at 18". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allsnow Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Gfs out to hr 15. Light snow in area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbo81 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I doubt the Euro would be this wrong so close in but I could see an east adjustment for sure. To me though the RGEM actually looked better than prior runs and the NAM seemed weird overall, which is common. Tonight if the Euro holds firm again it would be very hard for me to see the weaker/east camp being right. I'd say right now 80% chance NYC gets over 12", 50% chance at 18". agree jm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophisticated Skeptic Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 How has the nam been consistent when it has shifted east the last three runs? This is the same model that had 14 inches for me 24 hrs out last sat The trends have been very minor shifts eastward. It's overall structure has been the same and consistent the last 3 runs. If it was flip-flopping back and forth like crazy, then i'd throw it out myself. But it's been solidly consistent it's last 3 runs. I don't want the NAM to verify either, but usually when it's solid like this...it shouldn't be ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.