ORH_wxman Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: Wagons north congrats PF NAM would be pretty good for a lot of SNE...it's actually a pretty classic interior snowstorm look. But new solution in 6 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted January 20, 2017 Author Share Posted January 20, 2017 Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said: 18z GFS and now 00z NAM have sucked... Weenies on the bus go round and round. Let's see what Sat looks like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40/70 Benchmark Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 Just now, ORH_wxman said: NAM would be pretty good for a lot of SNE...it's actually a pretty classic interior snowstorm look. But new solution in 6 hours. Ok...I stand corrected. Haven'y had a chance to look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TauntonBlizzard2013 Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: Wagons north congrats PF Pretty much AWT. PF Dendrite Sunday River. That area looks primed for a big hit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted January 20, 2017 Author Share Posted January 20, 2017 1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said: NAM would be pretty good for a lot of SNE...it's actually a pretty classic interior snowstorm look. But new solution in 6 hours. Well I guess I read soundings wrong as they had only sleet. I was told warm was too deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said: 18z GFS and now 00z NAM have sucked... I honestly could care less about those runs. I thought nam was fine inland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, TauntonBlizzard2013 said: Pretty much AWT. PF Dendrite Sunday River. That area looks primed for a big hit Just accept the rain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted January 20, 2017 Author Share Posted January 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said: NAM would be pretty good for a lot of SNE...it's actually a pretty classic interior snowstorm look. But new solution in 6 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TauntonBlizzard2013 Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 Just now, CoastalWx said: Just accept the rain. Oh I definitely am. This area is cooked unless we see a miracle like a few of the eps ensembles. This like a classic NW and NNE snowstorm which hasn't been seen really in a few years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 1 minute ago, Ginx snewx said: Well I guess I read soundings wrong as they had only sleet. I was told warm was too deep. Eh, verbatim there's a marginal layer at 800mb...but I'm not really parsing that type of detail. Mostly just looking at the synoptics. You'll literally go insane sweating 0.6C in a sounding. My guess is that would cool as we got closer if we're still staring at a closed 500mb anticyclone over Quebec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIPPYVALLEY Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said: NAM would be pretty good for a lot of SNE...it's actually a pretty classic interior snowstorm look. But new solution in 6 hours. Actually looks like a potential crush job through S VT and maybe even here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted January 20, 2017 Author Share Posted January 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, CoastalWx said: I honestly could care less about those runs. I thought nam was fine inland. Wait lol you tell me that a Euro cross section is too deep in the warm layer but the NAM is fine. Can't keep up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted January 20, 2017 Author Share Posted January 20, 2017 1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said: Eh, verbatim there's a marginal layer at 800mb...but I'm not really parsing that type of detail. Mostly just looking at the synoptics. You'll literally go insane sweating 0.6C in a sounding. My guess is that would cool as we got closer if we're still staring at a closed 500mb anticyclone over Quebec This was exactly the point I made earlier but Scott Ryan and Chris said I was wrong. Can't keep up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUNNAWAYICEBERG Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 thought it was better to start because of more inflow of cooler mid levels into the backside of the ULL. stupid surface precip type map can fool you thinking its warmer/worse, but so can the model. Spread the grains of salt and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 10 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: Wagons north congrats PF In and up. In and up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, CoastalWx said: I honestly could care less about those runs. I thought nam was fine inland. Maybe this is a classic '92-'93 storm where there's a decent chunk of snow but also some good ole fashioned sleet/ZR mixed in too....seems like those storms with larger mix transition zones have been more absent recently. The setup kind of reminds me of this storm: http://mp1.met.psu.edu/~fxg1/NARR/1993/us0304.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dendrite Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said: May this is a classic '92-'93 storm where there's a decent chunk of snow but also some good ole fashioned sleet/ZR mixed in too....seems like those storms with larger mix transition zones have been more absent recently. The setup kind of reminds me of this storm: http://mp1.met.psu.edu/~fxg1/NARR/1993/us0304.php Give me 9 days later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 Just now, dendrite said: Give me 9 days later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: This was exactly the point I made earlier but Scott Ryan and Chris said I was wrong. Can't keep up Well you keep bouncing between models. The Euro wasn't 0.6C, and really neither is the NAM, but it's a shallower warm layer than the Euro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dendrite Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said: Pretty similar upper level look though. Looks like CON only had 2" from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 Just now, dendrite said: Pretty similar upper level look though. Looks like CON only had 2" from it. Really? I'm surprised...I would have figured a lot more there. ORH had like 11 inches I think...even BOS did well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 If we have a 1000+ m thick layer, we have work to do. If it's around 500 m or less, we have more outs to overcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted January 20, 2017 Author Share Posted January 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, OceanStWx said: Well you keep bouncing between models. The Euro wasn't 0.6C, and really neither is the NAM, but it's a shallower warm layer than the Euro. Euro sounding at 0Z Tuesday was indeed 0.6 but it doesn't matter. NAM sounding is 70 mb thick according to that sounding. I will check out cross sections but anyways seems to me that Will is correct in stating that it looks like an interior Mass thump on the NAM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbenedet Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 16 minutes ago, OceanStWx said: In and up. In and up. Careful what you wish for..The GEFS mean is over the BM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: Euro sounding at 0Z Tuesday was indeed 0.6 but it doesn't matter. NAM sounding is 70 mb thick according to that sounding. I will check out cross sections but anyways seems to me that Will is correct in stating that it looks like an interior Mass thump on the NAM When we're talking models, it's easy to conflate the general setup with verbatim talk...so verbatim, the NAM is sleet, but I'm def thinking snowier in my mind if I was forecasting the storm and that was the guidance I was staring at. Synoptically on that solution, there is an easy way to cool the column when you have a really stout closed off anticyclone in the mid-levels over Quebec...classic case where a model with underestimate the drain of dry polar air on the east side of it.\ and it only needs to be a fraction too warm in order to get a lot more snow. If I was staring at that sounding and the map showed a high sliding off the coast with only a weak sig in the mid-levels, I'd be thinking this will porobably flip faster than guidance shows...or at least it probably won't be colder than it shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 GGW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted January 20, 2017 Author Share Posted January 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said: When we're talking models, it's easy to conflate the general setup with verbatim talk...so verbatim, the NAM is sleet, but I'm def thinking snowier in my mind if I was forecasting the storm and that was the guidance I was staring at. Synoptically on that solution, there is an easy way to cool the column when you have a really stout closed off anticyclone in the mid-levels over Quebec...classic case where a model with underestimate the drain of dry polar air on the east side of it.\ and it only needs to be a fraction too warm in order to get a lot more snow. If I was staring at that sounding and the map showed a high sliding off the coast with only a weak sig in the mid-levels, I'd be thinking this will porobably flip faster than guidance shows...or at least it probably won't be colder than it shows. Think the stout easterly wind flow is a contributing factor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: Euro sounding at 0Z Tuesday was indeed 0.6 but it doesn't matter. NAM sounding is 70 mb thick according to that sounding. I will check out cross sections but anyways seems to me that Will is correct in stating that it looks like an interior Mass thump on the NAM Well those x-sects looked warmer than that. But regardless, it's about what the forecast is not what the NAM or Euro shows. I happen to broadly like a cooling trend (I reserve the right to change my mind when I really dig in tomorrow), but verbatim that was a thick layer to overcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted January 20, 2017 Author Share Posted January 20, 2017 Just now, CoastalWx said: GGW. Yeah learning sucks. Sorry to interrupt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: Think the stout easterly wind flow is a contributing factor? Def in the low levels...no way ORH is like 34 at the sfc on the NAM solution in reality...models are almost always too geostrophic at the sfc. But it's possible it's also affecting mid-levels too...esp if it's not dry enough in the source region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.