Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

January 22-23 Storm Threat


Ralph Wiggum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Not buying the probably inflated NAM qpf output, but if its shift in heaviest precip axis verifies, it mimics the late shift North on guidance prior to 96 storm almost to a tee. Not comparing amounts, just the shift N with heaviest axis 36-48 hours or so prior to onset. Rest of 12z suite will be telling. Seatbelt fastened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know we've been NAM'd before. We are used to the qpf bombs on the NAM. However, this makes like 3-4 consecutive runs with extreme qpf for part of our area. It is 90% likely it is overdone, but there is always that chance as a hi res model it is seeing the banding more accurately than the globals. Look, Im not saying it is right, I am in no way biting on those totals but serious question......at what point do we say hey, maybe the NAM isnt so outlandish? Like 12 hours out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know we've been NAM'd before. We are used to the qpf bombs on the NAM. However, this makes like 3-4 consecutive runs with extreme qpf for part of our area. It is 90% likely it is overdone, but there is always that chance as a hi res model it is seeing the banding more accurately than the globals. Look, Im not saying it is right, I am in no way biting on those totals but serious question......at what point do we say hey, maybe the NAM isnt so outlandish? Like 12 hours out?

Thought rule of thumb is to take 30% off those totals? Even so your talking a 12-18 storm for everyone in here
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know we've been NAM'd before. We are used to the qpf bombs on the NAM. However, this makes like 3-4 consecutive runs with extreme qpf for part of our area. It is 90% likely it is overdone, but there is always that chance as a hi res model it is seeing the banding more accurately than the globals. Look, Im not saying it is right, I am in no way biting on those totals but serious question......at what point do we say hey, maybe the NAM isnt so outlandish? Like 12 hours out?

 

Use the NAM to verify/observe dynamics, cut QPF by 50% has always been my MO. Which bodes well for the region anyway!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to see a big improvement in the GFS in like 30 minutes.

Disagree. As long as it doesnt shift S and E we are ok. Dont need a major shift to match the NAM....baby steps are fine to try and meet in the middle (GFS/NAM blend). Still have time. 

 

Also of note, the GFS OP and Euro OP are theoretically exiting what is considered their wheelhouse. Almost time to put less weight in the globals and more emphasis on shorter range hi res guidance. Though obviously with that said, it doesnt mean we just discount them entirely. Guidance just weighted a little differently at this range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree. As long as it doesnt shift S and E we are ok. Dont need a major shift to match the NAM....baby steps are fine to try and meet in the middle (GFS/NAM blend). Still have time. 

 

Also of note, the GFS OP and Euro OP are theoretically exiting what is considered their wheelhouse. Almost time to put less weight in the globals and more emphasis on shorter range hi res guidance. Though obviously with that said, it doesnt mean we just discount them entirely. Guidance just weighted a little differently at this range.

 

I meant more that we need to see the GFS with temp profiles more in line with other modeling.  It had decent precip but we lost 1/3 of it to sleet at 6z.

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...