Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,618
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    RyRyB
    Newest Member
    RyRyB
    Joined

Winter Storm 1/6 - 1/8, 2017


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 minute ago, griteater said:

UKMet not as suppressed as I thought.  This would be snow from upstate to Raleigh and NW

s41fgj.gif

The precip maps are available to 72.  I can't tell much from tau 72 at all really when comparing to the GFS to try and guess where things go precip wise thereafter 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It stinks that we're now in the time frame when it's almost impossible for big dog scenarios to show up.  It's almost like the ingredients that create big snows for the SE can't exist inside of 120 hours.




That's entirely not true, I'll never forget what the models did Christmas '10 in a similar situation. I'll never throw in the towel for a big dog until the SW is on the West coast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Snowless in Carrollton said:

I don't know why we even take models seriously past 4 days or so. Once you get within 3 or 4 days then that's when reality hits. Anything past 4 days is purely entertainment and not to be taken literally.

Exactly!  Then again, no one should take these model runs "literally."  In contrast, one needs to realize we will never be able to sample the entire atmosphere, thus it's unreasonable for us to expect any individual model run to verify 100%.  Moreover,  it's conceivable that one of the 64 individual runs of the long range (384 hr. GFS) might even closely verify simply because of the number of subsequent runs during that period...not necessarily because it foresaw the dynamical evolution 16 days in advance, for example.   

I realize I'm not sharing any groundbreaking information (nor directing this post towards you, specifically),  but rather a reminder that these models are fallible and one should anticipate subtle to major changes as we get closer to a prospective event; especially given that the models will contain more substantive data and be within an ever diminishing lead time.   

For the aforementioned reasons, it's important that the general populace understands that these model runs are used as valuable guidance to forecasters (aren't the forecast), and that even then, there's no such thing as a forecast that is "set in stone."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, can we please not post the link in main threads like this to the other forum?  Do not want to spam.

Thanks.

 

Some weather input:

GFS PARA (2 runs old) and 00z GFS is good for GA and into Midlands of SC.  The 00z is a tad warmer and needs to be watched though.   CAE received 7 inches or so while Florence jackpots with around 8.5-9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AirNelson39 said:

 

 


That's entirely not true, I'll never forget what the models did Christmas '10 in a similar situation. I'll never throw in the towel for a big dog until the SW is on the West coast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Yeah, it was more hyperbole than anything else.  How often do we see huge, massive snow hits in the 200+ time frame that peter out massively come game time?  An awful lot.  But on rare occasion, they do happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ncforecaster89 said:

Exactly!  Then again, no one should take these model runs "literally."  In contrast, one needs to realize we will never be able to sample the entire atmosphere, thus it's unreasonable for us to expect any individual model run to verify 100%.  Moreover,  it's conceivable that one of the 64 individual runs of the long range (384 hr. GFS) might even closely verify simply because of the number of subsequent runs during that period...not necessarily because it foresaw the dynamical evolution 10 days in advance, for example.   

I realize I'm not sharing any groundbreaking information (nor directing this post towards you, specifically),  but rather a reminder that these models are fallible and one should anticipate subtle to major changes as we get closer to a prospective event; especially given that the models will contain more substantive data and be within an ever diminishing lead time.   

For the aforementioned reasons, it's important that the general populace understands that these model runs are used as valuable guidance to forecasters (aren't the forecast), and that even then, there's no such thing as a forecast that is "set in stone."

But unfortunately a lot of people see these images on social media 5+ days in advance and take them literally. I wish there was a rule that the general public including people in here couldn't see any weather model past 4 days. That way people wouldn't see these crazy model runs and get their hopes up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Snowless in Carrollton said:

But unfortunately a lot of people see these images on social media 5+ days in advance and take them literally. I wish there was a rule that the general public including people in here couldn't see any weather model past 4 days. That way people wouldn't see these crazy model runs and get their hopes up.

Many argue the models have gotten worse but in reality the reason for that perception is that they go so far out now.  20 years ago we had virtually nothing beyond 72 hours.  So forecasts to day 4 or 5 were strictly guesses 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cold Rain said:

Yeah, it was more hyperbole than anything else.  How often do we see huge, massive snow hits in the 200+ time frame that peter out massively come game time?  An awful lot.  But on rare occasion, they do happen.

You are full of....hyperbole  :lmao:  I kid of course

GFS Ensemble Members

30bnxbr.gif

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...