Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,588
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

3/4 - 3/5 Post-Frontal Snow Chance


Capt. Adam

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I said last night that if the big precip area gets crushed south that very few people would see heavy snow amounts, maybe a small swath. There will be lots of warm air with this in association with the overrunning moist flow, and too much of a squeeze play between that and the confluence means a smaller heavy snow area.

Agree with you - also GFS seems a tick south and less robust - who could have seen this trend continuing?  :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said I'm still not convinced till this first wave passes through.. If models still wanna push this South then, it is what it is..

How many times have seen models not pick up on details like this till 1 Storm or wave exits... 50 miles is very minor in the grand scale of it.. Could still go either way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the south trend. Needs to stop

That arctic front will have resistance and will not fly off the coast like the 18z GFS is showing . The 18z RGEM is further N than it was at 12z , that`s what you wanted to see .SLP will not slide that far S E  that fast with this in the way .ecmwf-ens_z500a_us_3.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, there's NO evidence that "trend" has any meaning - i.e., a "trend" doesn't increase the odds of that trend being followed with the next model run.  It's just random noise that your brains mistakenly identify as signal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone has literally been crapping on the nam all year.. Why would we start trusting it now?

And anyone that's said the nams done well lately gets attacked immediately and called homer lol

Well, if you believe the NAM outside of its range, then yes, you are a fool. But the NAM is solid within its range IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone has literally been crapping on the nam all year.. Why would we start trusting it now?

And anyone that's said the nams done well lately gets attacked immediately and called homer lol

Because it's showing a preferred solution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you believe the NAM outside of its range, then yes, you are a fool. But the NAM is solid within its range IMO

Not a single person has taken the nam serious all season within 6 hrs even....now it shows the best solution were all back on board with its 48hr killszone

Trust me it shows the best outcome for me too but as someone that's supported the nam most the season, and got harassed for it, I find it funny everyones coming out of the woodworks now to support it cause it's finally favourable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The upgraded GFS had done well this winter. I don't know why choose the NAM over it. I'll ride the GFS.

 

Its been very bad on the last 4 or 5 storms, it was horrific on the one in the Southeast last week, its had major dryness problems on QPF and been too flat or south.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure we're actually seeing any "trends" but rather seeing the models' outputs fluctuating around a mean solution, which is fairly normal.  If the mean doesn't move much, the fluctuations, in theory, should decrease in amplitude (deviation from the mean) as one gets closer to the event, since the uncertainty is decreasing and the amount of time available until the event is decreasing.

 

In theory, lol.  I do wish the NWS and other winter weather forecasters would adopt some sort of "cone of uncertainty" for storm tracks, like they have for tropical systems - and you could combine a graphic like that with accumulations in the path of the storm.  Would look cool.  Somebody make it happen, please.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure we're actually seeing any "trends" but rather seeing the models' outputs fluctuating around a mean solution, which is fairly normal. If the mean doesn't move much, the fluctuations, in theory, should decrease in amplitude (deviation from the mean) as one gets closer to the event, since the uncertainty is decreasing and the amount of time available until the event is decreasing.

In theory, lol. I do wish the NWS and other winter weather forecasters would adopt some sort of "cone of uncertainty" for storm tracks, like they have for tropical systems - and you could combine a graphic like that with accumulations in the path of the storm. Would look cool. Somebody make it happen, please.

I think they're trying to do something like that, with the "max/min" probabilities. I guess their thinking is that the general public would really only care about the actual accumulation odds rather than the low track, being that the strength of the low and other things play roles in how expansive or tight the precip shield would be. If it was a cone of uncertainty with the low track, as with hurricanes, the public may think that if you are right next to the low, you will get the most snow, as in a "bullseye".....but as long as they include the accumulations with it, it'd be awesome for everyone. Only issue would be that for each model run, there could be wild swings in the cone, more so than tropical cyclones because while the Cyclones may have developed already, the snowy storm systems in many cases will not even have developed, and one fly in the ointment could make or break it, depending on if you enjoy snow
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...