SP Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 TWC needs to use the MST3K names from Space Mutiny - I'd get on board with Storm Big McLargeHuge. Anyway, nontropical storms are best named after the fact, when their full impact is known, or simply by a descriptor and year since the impact is made memorable, e.g. March 93 Superstorm, Ash Wednesday Storm of 62, Blizzard of 96, etc. Tropical storms have a defined set of criteria that warrant a name even if the only thing they ever impact are shipping interests. In conclusion, TWC trying to name storms is like trying to make fetch happen. It's not going to happen. https://www.facebook.com/StopWeatherChannelFromNamingWinterStorms/photos_stream?ref=page_internal Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 In regards to the intermittent looking blobs of high qpf and subsidence on the GFS and CMC, I believe this is in response to the strong dynamics specifically 700mb vv's and frontogenic lifting features. I liken this to summer thunderstorms/instability. Bands of very heavy precipitation will likely setup at times with zones of subsidence on either side of said banding features. Yes, there probably will be some thunder accompanying these meso-scale bands of heavy precip. Very dynamic situation setting up and nobody should be concerned about the choppy looking qpf features on some of the models. Clearly a response to convective activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quakertown needs snow Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisy Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 In regards to the intermittent looking blobs of high qpf and subsidence on the GFS and CMC, I believe this is in response to the strong dynamics specifically 700mb vv's and frontogenic lifting features. I liken this to summer thunderstorms/instability. Bands of very heavy precipitation will likely setup at times with zones of subsidence on either side of said banding features. Yes, there probably will be some thunder accompanying these meso-scale bands of heavy precip. Very dynamic situation setting up and nobody should be concerned about the choppy looking qpf features on some of the models. Clearly a response to convective activity. The Par GFS wis really wrapped up, Philly would get snow but then over to a ton of sleet probably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 The Par GFS wis really wrapped up, Philly would get snow but then over to a ton of sleet probablyNW burbs? Say 20-25 miles NW of the city proper on the para? Major mixing issues there as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baseball0618 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 The Par GFS wis really wrapped up, Philly would get snow but then over to a ton of sleet probably Jordan VanDersleet usually occurs in these extremely wound up systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisy Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 NW burbs? Say 20-25 miles NW of the city proper on the para? Major mixing issues there as well? Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 YepWow, sounds like a pd2 repeat on the para. Big front end thump to major sleet episode. Sleet has support attm on some other guidance and with prolonged screaming east winds, seems inevitable. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 How reliable is this para GFS? I honestly dont follow it nor do I know its verification statistics. Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 The Par GFS wis really wrapped up, Philly would get snow but then over to a ton of sleet probably would be 1 to 2 ft of snow then some sleet. A lot of it is snow though. much like PDII, far from a valentines day 07 solution which was implied.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baseball0618 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 How reliable is this para GFS? I honestly dont follow it nor do I know its verification statistics. Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk I believe it is lagging it's predecessor the current GFS. Here is the thing with it and the Euro IMO. Especially with these dynamic storms. They have higher resolution like the short range meso models so sometimes in the medium range I feel like they can tend to over-amp things and I think that the 0Z Euro is a perfect example of that. If you remember last year the blizzard that wasn't? Every model except a few runs of the Euro showed the storm OTS and the Euro showed it hugging the coast b/c it over-amplified the system. The PARA GFS I believe has the same resolution as the Euro currently does and is doing the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacChump Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 just glad to see the precip...i'll have a heart attack over precip-type later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazwoper Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 just glad to see the precip...i'll have a heart attack over precip-type later... yep suppression was my concern (and still is). so worrying about p-typ at this time is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 Wasnt going to post on the NAM but generally unchanged thru 48hrs. Only notable difference is the precip shield is considerably more expansive. Not really too interested in what it shows post 48hrs to be honest. Not saying I wont peek tho :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Wasnt going to post on the NAM but generally unchanged thru 48hrs. Only notable difference is the precip shield is considerably more expansive. Not really too interested in what it shows post 48hrs to be honest. Not saying I wont peek tho :-) hour 54 precip shield noticeably further north than 6z. putting a hole in the 00z euro's slow solution.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 Only difference I see at H5 thru 48 is upper low is a tick farther South than 6z but the ridging out ahead is stronger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Dawk 20 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Wasnt going to post on the NAM but generally unchanged thru 48hrs. Only notable difference is the precip shield is considerably more expansive. Not really too interested in what it shows post 48hrs to be honest. Not saying I wont peek tho :-) Haha. The NY thread is going nuts over hour 54 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 Haha. The NY thread is going nuts over hour 54I wont analyze the NAM post 48hrs but I would assume the end result is improved based on what Ive seen thru that time. So their jubilation may be justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 Ok i will bite slightly.....NAM showing convective feedback issues in its long range likely due to its hi-res. At 60 hrs has 4 slp centers over the southeast in response to convection offshore. Thus why anything past even 36 hours on this model needs to be taken with a grain of salt/caution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baseball0618 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I wont analyze the NAM post 48hrs but I would assume the end result is improved based on what Ive seen thru that time. So their jubilation may be justified. less confluence so this should be north of previous runs. but it's the NAM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthonyweather Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 78 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 NAM is going to be a bomb... HR 72 sim radar Ok i will bite slightly.....NAM showing convective feedback issues in its long range likely due to its hi-res. At 60 hrs has 4 slp centers over the southeast in response to convection offshore. Thus why anything past even 36 hours on this model needs to be taken with a grain of salt/caution. not seeing this at all on the ncep website? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 NAM is going to be a bomb... not seeing this at all on the ncep website? Use the higher res tropical tidbits maps. At least 4 notable slp centers over the convection in the gulf stream: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 no changeover worries besides on the coast on the NAM, much cooler at 850 than the euro and para gfs. widespread 1.75-2" qpf and still snowing at the end of the run. It's long range NAM but still a great solution and in line with the GFS/GGEM camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthonyweather Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Use the higher res tropical tidbits maps. At least 4 notable slp centers over the convection in the gulf stream: This what you mean Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 This what you mean Yes. Unsure of the implications whether positive or negative. Merely pointing it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 Well, we got NAM'd that run lol. Lets see if there is support with rest of 12z suite before we start celebrating a clear-cut victory. Feeling good tho right now, no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kicking Up A Storm Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Weenie here: ANY hope of seeing a 24" storm for us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluescat1 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Well, we got NAM'd that run lol. Lets see if there is support with rest of 12z suite before we start celebrating a clear-cut victory. Feeling good tho right now, no doubt. You couldn't help yourself. me either.LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Weenie here: ANY hope of seeing a 24" storm for us? the way the GFS/GGEM and now NAM, on top of the EURO making major shifts towards those models, I would say yes there is a chance. I think we see QPF increase from here on out as the models begin to pick up on mesoscale features. I've been high on this set up since Monday and not living/dying with every model run qpf output. I still think 1 to 2 ft is a solid bet right now for SE PA through Jersey. Coastal areas will have mixing issues imo but I'm not sold it will come that far inland to 95 and if it does, I doubt it will be a long changeover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.