Hoth Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Updated WV history... Look at that little shortwave rounding the base of the ULL at the end. Juice things up for one last round? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juliancolton Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Look at that little shortwave rounding the base of the ULL at the end. Juice things up for one last round? I recall some folks talking about the weenie "last chance" shortwave in the SNE subforum this week. Could be it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongBeachSurfFreak Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Omg look at uptons latest map!!!! 30-36" for southern Nassau and the jfk area by far the record for us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowBlitzkrieg Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 wow, i never thought i was going to see that shading ever again after the storm last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cfa Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Omg look at uptons latest map!!!! 30-36" for southern Nassau and the jfk area by far the record for us I can't even.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rjay Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 image.png I can't even.... It's pretty but I don't have 30". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowberd Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 image.png I can't even.... holy mother of GOD!!!! never thought I'd ever see a map like that highlighting the former snow hole champions of Long Island!! Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBG Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 image.png I can't even.... I live on the New York side of the New York-Connecticut border. We got at most, 12". Not 18-24" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlsterCountySnowZ Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 holy mother of GOD!!!! never thought I'd ever see a map like that highlighting the former snow hole champions of Long Island!! Wow! God this depresses me lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowberd Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 God this depresses me lolyeah tables turned lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snywx Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 image.png I can't even.... Orange county though lol... Heart breaker to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WintersGrasp Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 So, can any met or pro comment on why the NAM (which in many cases is a great short range model) was able to do a MUCH better job forecasting this storm at it's longest range out to 84 hours?? It clearly performed better than the euro and GFS, which are both made for long range forecasting. Now, I've always felt that the NAM was a model made for short range forecasts within 24-36 hours to point out where heavier precip may fall during a storm (though not necessarily the exact amounts because they are usually exaggerated). What was it about this storm/type of storm that fooled the other models, but not the NAM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billgwx Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 One reason could be because its higher resolution allowed it to capture the brick wall of mesoscale frontogenetic forcing required to produce such heavy snows in our area better than the global models. Funny thing was that it was right from the get-go if a little too far north. A couple of days before the event I noticed it was a little farther north than the global models with the associated mid level low, and that for lack of a scientific description, it was doing something very weird with the intense mid level vort max progged to chug up the coast Friday night. These both may have lowered mid level heights enough in/near NYC to help open the floodgates. Still I was suspicious of this until Friday, and especially Friday night when the HRRR got within viewing range and modeled the intense banding that hit in the morning. I remember reading Joe Bastardi's WxBell blog earlier in the week where he mentioned the NAM was the only model in his mind to capture the idea of the surface low tucking in closer to the Mid Atlantic coast. It has often done well with lows wrapping up in this area...once again better resolution of the low level thermal gradients between land and sea, also SST gradient north of the Gulf Stream? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codfishsnowman Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 I live on the New York side of the New York-Connecticut border. We got at most, 12". Not 18-24" thats it there?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemost Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 One reason could be because its higher resolution allowed it to capture the brick wall of mesoscale frontogenetic forcing required to produce such heavy snows in our area better than the global models. Funny thing was that it was right from the get-go if a little too far north. A couple of days before the event I noticed it was a little farther north than the global models with the associated mid level low, and that for lack of a scientific description, it was doing something very weird with the intense mid level vort max progged to chug up the coast Friday night. These both may have lowered mid level heights enough in/near NYC to help open the floodgates. Still I was suspicious of this until Friday, and especially Friday night when the HRRR got within viewing range and modeled the intense banding that hit in the morning. I remember reading Joe Bastardi's WxBell blog earlier in the week where he mentioned the NAM was the only model in his mind to capture the idea of the surface low tucking in closer to the Mid Atlantic coast. It has often done well with lows wrapping up in this area...once again better resolution of the low level thermal gradients between land and sea, also SST gradient north of the Gulf Stream? Thanks Bill. I was really looking forward to hearing some explanation of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morris Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 One reason could be because its higher resolution allowed it to capture the brick wall of mesoscale frontogenetic forcing required to produce such heavy snows in our area better than the global models. Funny thing was that it was right from the get-go if a little too far north. A couple of days before the event I noticed it was a little farther north than the global models with the associated mid level low, and that for lack of a scientific description, it was doing something very weird with the intense mid level vort max progged to chug up the coast Friday night. These both may have lowered mid level heights enough in/near NYC to help open the floodgates. Still I was suspicious of this until Friday, and especially Friday night when the HRRR got within viewing range and modeled the intense banding that hit in the morning. I remember reading Joe Bastardi's WxBell blog earlier in the week where he mentioned the NAM was the only model in his mind to capture the idea of the surface low tucking in closer to the Mid Atlantic coast. It has often done well with lows wrapping up in this area...once again better resolution of the low level thermal gradients between land and sea, also SST gradient north of the Gulf Stream? Thanks! Isn't the para Euro as high in resolution as the 12km NAM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WintersGrasp Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 One reason could be because its higher resolution allowed it to capture the brick wall of mesoscale frontogenetic forcing required to produce such heavy snows in our area better than the global models. Funny thing was that it was right from the get-go if a little too far north. A couple of days before the event I noticed it was a little farther north than the global models with the associated mid level low, and that for lack of a scientific description, it was doing something very weird with the intense mid level vort max progged to chug up the coast Friday night. These both may have lowered mid level heights enough in/near NYC to help open the floodgates. Still I was suspicious of this until Friday, and especially Friday night when the HRRR got within viewing range and modeled the intense banding that hit in the morning. I remember reading Joe Bastardi's WxBell blog earlier in the week where he mentioned the NAM was the only model in his mind to capture the idea of the surface low tucking in closer to the Mid Atlantic coast. It has often done well with lows wrapping up in this area...once again better resolution of the low level thermal gradients between land and sea, also SST gradient north of the Gulf Stream? Thanks so much for taking the time to explain this. I guess I'll be taking the NAM seriously from now on. I know it was upgraded recently as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBG Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 thats it there?? Maybe 12"-15" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Star Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Thanks so much for taking the time to explain this. I guess I'll be taking the NAM seriously from now on. I know it was upgraded recently as well. One reason could be because its higher resolution allowed it to capture the brick wall of mesoscale frontogenetic forcing required to produce such heavy snows in our area better than the global models. Funny thing was that it was right from the get-go if a little too far north. A couple of days before the event I noticed it was a little farther north than the global models with the associated mid level low, and that for lack of a scientific description, it was doing something very weird with the intense mid level vort max progged to chug up the coast Friday night. These both may have lowered mid level heights enough in/near NYC to help open the floodgates. Still I was suspicious of this until Friday, and especially Friday night when the HRRR got within viewing range and modeled the intense banding that hit in the morning. I remember reading Joe Bastardi's WxBell blog earlier in the week where he mentioned the NAM was the only model in his mind to capture the idea of the surface low tucking in closer to the Mid Atlantic coast. It has often done well with lows wrapping up in this area...once again better resolution of the low level thermal gradients between land and sea, also SST gradient north of the Gulf Stream? Based on this explanation, the NAM progged the entire track of the storm better than the other models? If so, I can put this to rest and put it in my files. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkyfork Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 blanket statements like "ignore the nam" don't work in meteorology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForestHillWx Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 My question is why were the globals so inclined to chase the convection out in the Atlantic, as opposed to the more west based low pressure center? Was that a factor of the confluence it was picking up? Or were they more keyed in on the warmer SSTs and decided to redevelop the low at that location? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BxEngine Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 SHOVEL YOUR HYDRANTS!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 SHOVEL YOUR HYDRANTS!!!!! We have shovels tied to the back of all our trucks. Just about nobody shovels hydrants around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rjay Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 blanket statements like "ignore the nam" don't work in meteorology Ignore the NAM more often than not. Every met on the radio show was laughing at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rjay Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Never ignore the Forkcast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BxEngine Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 Never ignore the Forkcast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYC10023 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 SHOVEL YOUR HYDRANTS!!!!! Done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongBeachSurfFreak Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 SHOVEL YOUR HYDRANTS!!!!! I did all the hydrants on and around campus!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morris Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Great article by Earthlight. https://www.nymetroweather.com/2016/01/26/was-the-nams-blizzard-forecast-really-that-good/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rjay Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Great article by Earthlight. https://www.nymetroweather.com/2016/01/26/was-the-nams-blizzard-forecast-really-that-good/ He was ripping the NAM until 12 hours out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.