Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,589
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Super Snow Sunday


40/70 Benchmark

Recommended Posts

Fella, he's not even if the non-GFS consensus is right.  High ratios.....  .4 to .8 or so precip...you get his numbers.

 

If you think BOS is getting 12"+ (which is Harvey's numbers) but don't think a blizzard warning is warranted, then I'm not sure what you are thinking. A high ratio dendritic storm with those winds would certianly produce the visibility requirement...and we know the winds will verify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If you think BOS is getting 12"+ (which is Harvey's numbers) but don't think a blizzard warning is warranted, then I'm not sure what you are thinking. A high ratio dendritic storm with those winds would certianly produce the visibility requirement...and we know the winds will verify.

Do blizzard warnings not constitute snow amounts in addition to wind and temps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

looking at ens 24 hrs before the event? lol

 

You should get at least 3 feet.

 

If you think BOS is getting 12"+ (which is Harvey's numbers) but don't think a blizzard warning is warranted, then I'm not sure what you are thinking. A high ratio dendritic storm with those winds would certianly produce the visibility requirement...and we know the winds will verify.

 

There's justification for what he is forecasting in the consensus of other models.  I don't think the warning verifies right now, and I don't think Boston is getting a foot plus at 10 to 1.   But I can see where he would get his numbers because many have tossed 20 to 1 around, and the NAM/RGEM/GGEM combo would put it reasonably close to what he was forecasting when some OE is tossed in.  If he'd gone 18+ it'd have been a harder one to explain sans full bore GFS.

 

Clinch, I think that the GEFs might actually be too close in now than at 12z today to really be of use. What is interesting to me is that the upper levels of the 0z op run of the GFS is an exact match of the 12z GEFs mean for the upper levels. Besides, if the upper levels continue to trend stronger up til this hitting the Jersey coast, I fully expect to see a result much closer to what the GFS currently has than what other models show. Remember the GFS is also much better with northern streamers than those way east model solutions of the RGEM/UKIE/GGEM/NAM. Maybe even better with northern stream systems than the EURO, but I don't know if I can go as far as to say that. This is definitely a big test for the GFS.

 

I think it's two different things though.  This feature dumps .45" in a short period as it rips across....it's north of the closing center,  originates directly above where the inverted trough is on the other models, pulses down and then back up again later in the run.  It shows itself a couple of different times, it just looks very odd to me.

 

I could be totally and completely wrong and we're seeing some truly unique here and all the other models are missing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do blizzard warnings not constitute snow amounts aside from wind and temps?

 

They are visibility (due to either snow or blowing snow) and wind...the amounts themselves are irrelevant and so are temps....though in order to get visibility down to 1/4 mile in New England for 3 straight hours or more, you need the rates since we don't live in the plains. So the snow amounts are kind of indirectly related. You need heavy snow...or at least moderate snow with a ton of wind to bring it down to 1/4 mile vis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well - and I could be totally wrong - but if that inverted trough is going to be particularly robust - and it probably is at least for a time, the GFS could be going ape with it, triggering a convective type feedback process from the trough itself.  Once that is initiated it would in and of itself wreck any trough as the 500mb feature would trump that.    I mean IMO that's the entire difference in the "all others" vs GFS type camp.   We can argue the nuances of .4 vs .65 from the others, but the GFS is a region wide dump.

 

I think it's bogus.  It doesn't make sense to me that it's closing the mid level centers while having what is basically a pin hole in the atmosphere rushing across SNE north of it.  The others shear it out as you'd expect.

Wouldn't that convective feedback issue also mean that the dispursement of the precip back west would be limited more so then reality? The sharp cutoff west is overdone with that "wall" in the way, Maybe those higher jackpot totals are false but I think it disrupt things to the west imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a risky proposition. Discounting MOST of the models and putting the ONE you like at the head of the class? Careful now.

read back a few pages. Other guidance has moved towards GFS. And the GFS has held serve consistently. Also as just mentioned it handle northern streamers better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are visibility (due to either snow or blowing snow) and wind...the amounts themselves are irrelevant and so are temps....though in order to get visibility down to 1/4 mile in New England for 3 straight hours or more, you need the rates since we don't live in the plains. So the snow amounts are kind of indirectly related. You need heavy snow...or at least moderate snow with a ton of wind to bring it down to 1/4 mile vis.

 

Or at the very least this dry, blowing snow we've had. I was talking about this today with someone. Its amazing how our snowpack is still relatively powdery. It's been so cold around here this kind of snow pack depth and consistency is something we never see around here. Usually we get some break in between storms and a few warming days to melt the pack then refreeze and firm it up. That hasn't happen yet.

 

It won't take much to have ground blizzards with these winds with the consistency of the snowpack, it was blowing quite a bit today even. Very rare stuff out this way along the coast especially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are visibility (due to either snow or blowing snow) and wind...the amounts themselves are irrelevant and so are temps....though in order to get visibility down to 1/4 mile in New England for 3 straight hours or more, you need the rates since we don't live in the plains. So the snow amounts are kind of indirectly related. You need heavy snow...or at least moderate snow with a ton of wind to bring it down to 1/4 mile vis.

So It seems that the GFS is the only model showing this, no? I mean, part of the requirement you mention are the heavy rates...are any other models showing rates like that at all? Like someone said earlier, seems like NOAA is riding the GFS pretty hard. Good luck in forecasting this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So It seems that the GFS is the only model showing this, no? I mean, part of the requirement you mention are the heavy rates...are any other models showing this at all? Like someone said earlier, seems like NOAA is riding the GFS pretty hard. Good luck in forecasting this.

 

 

NAM might pull it off...esp if there is excellent dendritic growth to help the vis down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...