Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,589
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Gnarly Nor'easter 1/24 to 1/25/17 our favorite week


Ginx snewx

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

I'm a bit skeptical of the sfc prog...guidance seems to have the cold wedge a bit too far west in my eyes looking at the synoptics of the high. 

Maybe it's right but I feel like they always want to make the sfc low off to the south and southwest too symmetrical and the flow too geostrophic at sfc. 

With the flow clockwise around HP shouldn't that be more SSE instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 minutes ago, dendrite said:

So close to a snow bomb here...lots to iron out over the next couple of days though.

Here is a point pretty close to your place off the 12z GFS. The window for the bulk of the precip is between the green lines (time moving from right to left).

You can see that you're below 0C until about 09z, and then the temp above 800 mb climbs to about +2C (falling through a -3C layer before reaching the ground).

GFStsect.jpeg.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jbenedet said:

The 12z GFS was the most impressive snow map for SENH this season. Excluding the coast it was 8-12". Even the coast shows 2-5". I'll take that and run with it considering the GFS BL warm bias...

We're edging closer to a big winter event here..

I agree, Just a matter if we mix or not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

I'm a bit skeptical of the sfc prog...guidance seems to have the cold wedge a bit too far west in my eyes looking at the synoptics of the high. 

Maybe it's right but I feel like they always want to make the sfc low off to the south and southwest too symmetrical and the flow too geostrophic at sfc. 

Which is why I chucked in that "regardless." I'm not too concerned about what the GFS is showing me for surface temp and just assuming it will be 32 or colder outside of the torchy spots (coast, CT River, HIE).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

Which is why I chucked in that "regardless." I'm not too concerned about what the GFS is showing me for surface temp and just assuming it will be 32 or colder outside of the torchy spots (coast, CT River, HIE).

Its interesting that the gfs was actually colder at the surface than the NAM in S NH. If we get a gfs type evolution id bet the CF would be pinned closer to the coast the NAM is showing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wx2fish said:

Its interesting that the gfs was actually colder at the surface than the NAM in S NH. If we get a gfs type evolution id bet the CF would be pinned closer to the coast the NAM is showing

It's odd, in our system here (GFE) the NAM is always warmer than the GFS in CAD situations. Which is the complete opposite of what we are used to. I'm not sure what happened to that model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we also need to see where the deep layer lift is. You'd want to see that in the snow grown zone to help fight off the warming in that 850-800 layer. Some models look like they keep it below the DgZ which isn't ideal. That said, I'd take the under on temps 950 and below in the far interior. It seems like we'd have more NE flow vs ENE like some models show. Maybe you have something where you have **** snow growth from low level CF lift while its pelting too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OceanStWx said:

It's odd, in our system here (GFE) the NAM is always warmer than the GFS in CAD situations. Which is the complete opposite of what we are used to. I'm not sure what happened to that model.

The 12km has shat the bed on CAD. It was maybe 4 winters ago when I really noticed it (and event in December 2012). The 4km still seems to do very well though. 

I am def curious as to why the regular 12km NAM is so much worse now. Probably some sort of sacrifice they made for convection but off the top of my head I can't think how it would worsen CAD in the model. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wx2fish said:

Its interesting that the gfs was actually colder at the surface than the NAM in S NH. If we get a gfs type evolution id bet the CF would be pinned closer to the coast the NAM is showing

12z NAM was wacky. It holds onto the primary for too long. That was the reason for the warmer temps in general, imo.

This is a really complex system, I'd be weighing the globals far more than the mesos right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

It's odd, in our system here (GFE) the NAM is always warmer than the GFS in CAD situations. Which is the complete opposite of what we are used to. I'm not sure what happened to that model.

Very strange. Its been destroying every other model in PDX CAD this year, especially the 3km and 4km but the 12km usually hints at it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Seems like for now it's a bit south thanks to the block up north, but not sure it will matter quite yet. I really wish that darn secondary rapidly developed at the triple point...but that's tough to do when H5 is already closed off.

Bingo.  This storm is going to town way too soon.

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...