Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,606
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

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


Capt. Adam

Recommended Posts

NW bias in play on the Nam. Plus it's a garbage model beyond 36-48 hours. You're much better off going with the Gfs/Euro right now.

It's very easy to toss a model when it doesn't show the most desirable outcome. It's a lot harder to give a legitimate scientific explanation as to your reasoning. 

 

"NW bias" & "Garbage model" leave much to be desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's very easy to toss a model when it doesn't show the most desirable outcome. It's a lot harder to give a legitimate scientific explanation as to your reasoning. 

 

"NW bias" & "Garbage model" leave much to be desired.

I think that you can't throw this NAM run out, but at the same time you have to acknowledge the NAM's tendency to overamp, especially at this range. I think what you can take out of this run is that there is going to be 1"+ QPF to work with for most of the area and that someone should get hit relatively hard.

 

I actually think the NAM is right I want it right now (CNJ/I-95). If you take a blend with the global models, it puts the axis of heaviest precip along I-95. At this point I am more worried about suppression than I am about it ending up to far NW. It was good too see a qpf bomb as it gives us a hint that the globals especially the EURO might be underdoing the precip at this point. I'm hoping for a major storm not a significant storm so I'll roll the dice on this one and hope for more qpf to work with even if it means a risk of tainting. There's gonna be some great dynamics on this system and its certainly the type of storm that can overperform on the qpf side, however pinpointing where the heaviest axis of precip is and runs into cold air is the tricky part. There should be an axis somewhere within our region of 8"+ IMO, but I'm not sure where that sets up. We shall see...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that you can't throw this NAM run out, but at the same time you have to acknowledge the NAM's tendency to overamp, especially at this range. I think what you can take out of this run is that there is going to be 1"+ QPF to work with for most of the area and that someone should get hit relatively hard.

 

I actually think the NAM is right I want it right now (CNJ/I-95). If you take a blend with the global models, it puts the axis of heaviest precip along I-95. At this point I am more worried about suppression than I am about it ending up to far NW. It was good too see a qpf bomb as it gives us a hint that the globals especially the EURO might be underdoing the precip at this point. I'm hoping for a major storm not a significant storm so I'll roll the dice on this one and hope for more qpf to work with even if it means a risk of tainting. There's gonna be some great dynamics on this system and its certainly the type of storm that can overperform on the qpf side, however pinpointing where the heaviest axis of precip is and runs into cold air is the tricky part. There should be an axis somewhere within our region of 8"+ IMO, but I'm not sure where that sets up. We shall see...

Where are folks seeing an increase in precipitation on the 18Z NAM? I'm looking at 24 hour precip totals from hour 84 and getting less than 1 inch QPF. What am I missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very easy to toss a model when it doesn't show the most desirable outcome. It's a lot harder to give a legitimate scientific explanation as to your reasoning. 

 

"NW bias" & "Garbage model" leave much to be desired.

 

The NAM tends to have an amped bias in that period, its not always the case but generally it is...I find it hard to believe anyone near the coast will have any worries in this event other than the chance of suppression which is marginally still on the table

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NAM tends to have an amped bias in that period, its not always the case but generally it is...I find it hard to believe anyone near the coast will have any worries in this event other than the chance of suppression which is marginally still on the table

I think we're all well aware of the NAM's tendency to be over amplified in the mid-range, but in this case we're not talking about a miller A where you would look at a track over E PA and say, "this is going to come East". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very easy to toss a model when it doesn't show the most desirable outcome. It's a lot harder to give a legitimate scientific explanation as to your reasoning. 

 

"NW bias" & "Garbage model" leave much to be desired.

dude the nam literally is the worst model there is...it had me getting 30+ inches during the blizzard and had me getting 6 withe the inverted trough like 6 hours before and i got like zero...saying its a garbage model leaves nothing to be desired and never will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dude the nam literally is the worst model there is...it had me getting 30+ inches during the blizzard and had me getting 6 withe the inverted trough like 6 hours before and i got like zero...saying its a garbage model leaves nothing to be desired and never will.

Shall I go grab the Euro run which gave me 30" of snow a couple of days before the same storm?

 

This is a storm discussion thread, let's take the model performance discussion to a different thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shall I go grab the Euro run which gave me 30" of snow a couple of days before the same storm?

This is a storm discussion thread, let's take the model performance discussion to a different thread.

So many people jump on you when you're just telling them what the model shows not personally telling them that it's going to happen. It's incredibly irritating. Facepalm people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many people jump on you when you're just telling them what the model shows not personally telling them that it's going to happen. It's incredibly irritating. Facepalm people.

Indeed, I debated not even discussing the NAM because I knew the attacks would fly when it wasn't what people wanted to hear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, I debated not even discussing the NAM because I knew the attacks would fly when it wasn't what people wanted to hear. 

no one is attacking you...u said saying the nam is garbage leaves alot to be desired...which it doesnt lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no one is attacking you...u said saying the nam is garbage leaves alot to be desired...which it doesnt lol

There is no place for that in here.

 

If you want to discuss the performance of the NAM I'll be happy to discuss it with you elsewhere.

 

I'm trying to improve the quality of the discussion in here.

 

One liners like "That model is garbage" adds nothing of value to the discussion, regardless of the validity of the post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now, it is really premature to be trying to pin down details for the wave of low pressure that is forecast to follow the Tuesday night-Wednesday system. While a messy solution is on the table, so are colder, snowier ones. Indeed, the latest Hazardous Weather Outlook states:

 

IN ADDITION...THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR 6 INCHES OR MORE OF SNOW TO FALL FROM WEDNESDAY NIGHT INTO THURSDAY.

 

To date, March has seen 4.8" snow for NYC. By itself, that's pretty impressive for recent years. For example just one-third of years in the 2000-2014 timeframe saw 4" or more snow in March. Furthermore, 27% saw 6" or more and just 7" saw 8" or more.

 

If the system on Tuesday night delivers consistent with most of the guidance, NYC's March snowfall will be somewhere between 5.5"-6.5". Then, if the system winds up even modestly colder than the NAM (which is not a medium-range model), 10" monthly snowfall might be reachable. The last time March saw 10" snowfall for the month was 1996 when 13.2" fell.

 

Right now, all the snow that lies ahead should be seen as a nice bonus. The entire region has had above normal snowfall through March 1. Obviously, this winter has seen Suffolk County and New London County do best relative to normal when it comes to snowfall. Coupled with February's extreme cold, winter 2014-15 has been a very good one. December's warmth and the early lack of snowfall in January does not really change this.

 

Hopefully, the follow-up system to Tuesday's night's one will provide a widespread and significant snowfall, but the details have yet to be worked out. There's no reason to latch onto either the snowiest or least snowy solutions right now, especially as the overall synoptic pattern is complex and small details will likely make a big difference.

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...