showmethesnow Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 11 minutes ago, Wonderdog said: I still like to compare apples with apples and in this case that means comparing 0z with the upcoming 12z. I know I know, I've read multiple times on this board there is not any difference between the off runs and the 0z and 12z but it seems to me that there are, especially when we're not locked in yet to a probable solution. I agree with you. I know we have had Mets tell us that there is no statistical difference between the 00Z and 12Z and the off runs but from what I have seen it seems that there is but at no where near the extent we saw years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAPE Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, showmethesnow said: The 06Z GEFS has brought no clarity for our possible storm. If anything it has muddied the picture. With all the moving pieces we are seeing and the difficulties the models are having I would not be surprised if this is a case where we do not know where we stand until almost game time. For now I am going with the Euro idea and focusing on the Friday event. It has trended better, and still time for it to trend a bit closer and stronger. It wont be a big storm but I would gladly take a 1-3 or 2-4 type event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErinInTheSky Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 So both models now are back to a Southeast forum threat eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 4 minutes ago, losetoa6 said: Good analysis as usual and just to add ....the Ukie when looking at hour 96 is in the gfs camp with holding wave 2 energy back. ( 0z below) Agreed with psuhoffman's always insightful analysis. The issue imo isn't with the models holding the energy back thru 84 hrs or so. It is with HOW that energy gets downstream. The GFS is basically one consolidated area of vorticity that comes out, many of the other models and ens means are showing a more strung out and sheared mess. There is decent agreement early on. Once we get to 84 hours give or take, the forecast is more muddled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue_Ridge_Escarpment Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 1 minute ago, supernovasky said: So both models now are back to a Southeast forum threat eh? Yes. Outside of a few blips that has been the case the past 48-72 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, C.A.P.E. said: For now I am going with the Euro idea and focusing on the Friday event. It has trended better, and still time for it to trend a bit closer and stronger. It wont be a big storm but I would gladly take a 1-3 or 2-4 type event. I tend to agree with this at the moment. Focus on the system with the shorter lead time first. These are the ones that surprise us the last minute. They also tend to cause differences later on with the longer lead time forecasts. Either way, Jan 6-9 looks like a potential period for some unsettled and wintry weather still. If we punt on this period with nothing to show for it, the Panic Room will be rocking! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TowsonWeather Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 14 minutes ago, Blue_Ridge_Escarpment said: Yes. Outside of a few blips that has been the case the past 48-72 hours. Haha... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisy Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 At this range you're never going to have the GFS showing a hit every run. At the same rate you also don't want the OP GFS to be the only model showing a hit. Still long way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 At this range you're never going to have the GFS showing a hit every run. At the same rate you also don't want the OP GFS to be the only model showing a hit. Still long way out. And to piggyback on that, you also generally don't want to be in the bullseye snowfall band on the GFS with a 6-day+ lead time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted January 2, 2017 Author Share Posted January 2, 2017 2 hours ago, Thanatos_I_Am said: LOL, that's a muddled mess. It basically says flip a coin. It might snow a lot or none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraff Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 11 minutes ago, Ralph Wiggum said: And to piggyback on that, you also generally don't want to be in the bullseye snowfall band on the GFS with a 6-day+ lead time. Guess the best way to assess all of this is to remain calm and know the snow window is there. It should all be worked out by what...Wednesday? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted January 2, 2017 Author Share Posted January 2, 2017 There is a lot of support on the EPS for snow over the next 7 days. Here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
showmethesnow Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 7 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said: LOL, that's a muddled mess. It basically says flip a coin. It might snow a lot or none. To make it worse the members that are showing snow are keying on different energy/time frames to produce that snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
showmethesnow Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 5 minutes ago, PennQuakerGirl said: Now as a total weather novice: in order to get a higher snowfall, one would want the high pressure shown over Indiana on the GFS at [144] to be over eastern Canada? Or is that completely wrong? The high is fine though it could be improved a little if it was draped a little more over top of the low. The problem we have is at 500mb. The flow is too flat and progressive and does not allow the low move up the coast vs going out to sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Pimpernel Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 Wow, talk about some changes overnight! Still too much uncertainty but good to at least see this thing revived. Reading quickly through the last few pages, appears that we're looking at subtle but important differences in the wave of interest and what interactions it may have to allow better digging (of various degrees). Think we're in for a week long emotional roller coaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfan98 Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 DGEX Model looked great! 30 inch lollipop! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 13 minutes ago, PennQuakerGirl said: Now as a total weather novice: in order to get a higher snowfall, one would want the high pressure shown over Indiana on the GFS at [144] to be over eastern Canada? Or is that completely wrong? HP placement isn't as important in this setup as the upper levels. The trough doesn't bend enough to get the iso lines more SW-NE oriented which would allow the storm to go up the coast. edit: ninja'd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGoose69 Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 18 minutes ago, showmethesnow said: To make it worse the members that are showing snow are keying on different energy/time frames to produce that snow. As a whole the pattern does not really favor suppression IMO for the MA or NE. However, because we have zero clue as to which disturbances/when the disturbances will eject out its possible suppression does occur because there are windows of time in the Thu-Mon time period where if a shortwave ejects out at the right time this could be a SE event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Pimpernel Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 15 minutes ago, PennQuakerGirl said: Now as a total weather novice: in order to get a higher snowfall, one would want the high pressure shown over Indiana on the GFS at [144] to be over eastern Canada? Or is that completely wrong? 3 minutes ago, showmethesnow said: The high is fine though it could be improved a little if it was draped a little more over top of the low. The problem we have is at 500mb. The flow is too flat and progressive and does not allow the low move up the coast vs going out to sea. Was just going to say about the same. The 00Z trough was notably sharper than this 06Z depiction showmethesnow has above. As for the high placement at the surface, there is a small difference. It's pushed a bit more southeast at 06Z, whereas 00Z has it arcing more over the Great Lakes. That could mostly be the result of the 00Z storm being deeper, thus able to "attack" the cold high more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
showmethesnow Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 7 minutes ago, PennQuakerGirl said: So in that case, what would cause the trough to sharpen? An act of God? Seriously though. With such a flat flow in front of the trough we would preferably want a stationary 50/50 low or at least a well timed transient 50/50 to give some bend to the flow. Better ridging out west might help a touch as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattb65 Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 7 minutes ago, PennQuakerGirl said: So in that case, what would cause the trough to sharpen? It's all a function of the long wave pattern and the SW in question. You need a more amplified ridge in the west coast and/or a stronger and more consolidated short wave. The problem I forsee in this setup is the west coast ridge is centered too far east and not as amplified as we would typically need for a big solution like the one shown on the 0z GFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Pimpernel Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 9 minutes ago, PennQuakerGirl said: So in that case, what would cause the trough to sharpen? I think MillVilleWx had a good description a couple pages back. He mentioned the wave of interest interacting more with energy upstream from it early on as it approached the West Coast. Results in it being more consolidated and able to deepen a bit more. At least, hope I did his description justice, lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nw baltimore wx Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 2 hours ago, Ralph Wiggum said: Goes live in May 2017. Still being observed and tweaked. My understanding is it will replace the current gfs op. Maybe someone can answer this, but are the FIM and the Para the same model? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Pimpernel Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 9 minutes ago, showmethesnow said: An act of God? Seriously though. With such a flat flow in front of the trough we would preferably want a stationary 50/50 low or at least a well timed transient 50/50 to give some bend to the flow. Better ridging out west might help a touch as well. It's weather, which implies it must be an act of God! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high risk Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 19 minutes ago, nw baltimore wx said: Maybe someone can answer this, but are the FIM and the Para the same model? no, the FIM is a global model that is run by NOAA's Earth System Research Lab. It's not bad, but it will never be an operational model. The "para" being discussed is the next version of the GFS that is current in its evaluation period. If approved, it will replace the current GFS version in May. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attml Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 On the horizon if you are a believer: GFS At 132 on the GDPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Pimpernel Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 1 minute ago, high risk said: no, the FIM is a global model that is run by NOAA's Earth System Research Lab. It's not bad, but it will never be an operational model. The "para" being discussed is the next version of the GFS that is current in its evaluation period. If approved, it will replace the current GFS version in May. I cannot recall offhand, but I believe the para GFS is now in a frozen state in terms of development? I know the've been running retros for awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 DGEX Model looked great! 30 inch lollipop! Meh. The dgex has shown better :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Wiggum Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 I know its the NAM 12km in its long range, but this 12z run is finally ejecting the energy out West. Prior runs it just sat off the coast parked in a stationary position. Its a bit elongated but looks to be trying to come out in one piece anyway. I dont put too much stock in the NAM LR but I would say overall, its a step in the right direction vs prior couple of runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxw Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 Jesus unbelievable What a perfect setup for the anti trump (global warming is hoax) faction to mock trump and scream look at DC basking in insane warmth during inauguration day photos all over world of people in shorts and t-shirts watching the event live Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.