mike1984 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Much stronger, but faster too...Total shouldn't be differnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlsterCountySnowZ Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Faster storm less QPF... more impressive swath coverage wise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherlogix Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 5 minutes ago, NJwx85 said: The NAM is ridiculous. Looks like the 18z RGEM so far but more amped. the NAM is a step backwards and looks nothing (at h5) like the RGEM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlsterCountySnowZ Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Just now, NJwx85 said: Heavy pounding for 6 hours Great dynamic, just too fast, coulda been an all time great with some block Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJwx85 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 This thing is hauling. I'm confident now nobody around here gets more than a foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danstorm Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Just now, NJwx85 said: Heavy pounding for 6 hours That's what this has always been. The majority of our storms are compressed into 6 hours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesussxwx Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 There was some discussion earlier that a faster storm could hurt our totals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJwx85 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 1 minute ago, weatherlogix said: the NAM is a step backwards and looks nothing (at h5) like the RGEM I was talking about early on, then it went South. Way too fast for crazy totals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowlover11 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 a step back tbh. noise basically still 5-10" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimillman Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 There is a major subsidence signal on the NAM developing over the metro. Luckily, it's just the NAM signalling this, but I don't like the look of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rtd208 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Basing things strictly off of this run of the NAM (if it's correct) this is a 7-10" snowfall for the NYC metro area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamplover56 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Morris county jackpot on the nam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Close-up of the NAM's output: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterwx21 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Much less for central Jersey this run .... obviously it's much warmer on this run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimillman Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Even Boston is kind of screwed on this run caught in subsidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 What's wrong with the Nam? Nothing. Why are people freaking out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 1 minute ago, winterwx21 said: Much less for central Jersey this run .... obviously it's much warmer on this run. More amped also means warm. The front is delayed from making it through the Jersey shore. Also it's really banking on the large band in NE PA stretching along I-84 and kinda shafts SE of there. The NAM is pretty much on its own in doing this though. The evolution looks to fall apart a little as it pushes through. For most it would be a significant but not major event (outside the 50 mile wide band). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattinpa Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Most of this forum still gets 6-10 inches with NYC about 9. Not worth complaining about IMO. I am still waiting for my first storm of over an inch this winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILoveWinter Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 If the RGEM and GFS follow then we can "worry." But worrying about getting 7 vs 10 is really not too bad of a place to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherpruf Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, winterwx21 said: Much less for central Jersey this run .... obviously it's much warmer on this run. Help me out here....there's no real blocking right? So this means 3-6 inches would be a good storm and typical with a fast mover unless it was really intense....so expecting too much more than 8-10 would be unrealistic in our neck of the woods, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Mount Holly just updated with watches for all of NJ except Cape May. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimillman Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 6 minutes ago, winterwx21 said: Much less for central Jersey this run .... obviously it's much warmer on this run. I don't believe warmth is the problem. I think the column cools down fast enough to support mostly if not all snow in the metro and central NJ. The problem is subsidence as modeled clearly below: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGoose69 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, ILoveWinter said: If the RGEM and GFS follow then we can "worry." But worrying about getting 7 vs 10 is really not too bad of a place to be. The RGEM might, the GFS most likely would never have the ability to show what the NAM did because it's resolution isn't good enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDRY Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 I'm wondering if that batch of moisture out in the Atlantic ahead of this storm steals some of the dynamics. Because the latest run of the NAM has a better organized system earlier on, but it doesn't translate to a better precip field east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimillman Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 4 minutes ago, Snow88 said: What's wrong with the Nam? Nothing. Why are people freaking out? I continue to think the major problem for a large swath of us will be subsidence. Not saying it's necessarily us, but it's becoming clear that subsidence will majorly affect someone here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlsterCountySnowZ Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Para Nams a foot for everyone with ratios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ericjcrash Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 FWIW both 3k and 4k NAM are better than 18z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 1 minute ago, mimillman said: I continue to think the major problem for a large swath of us will be subsidence. Not saying it's necessarily us, but it's becoming clear that subsidence will majorly affect someone here. I agree but the NAM is probably overdoing it along with the strength of the band it has-its a known bias, and the other models aren't doing this. I would expect snow amounts to be a little lighter in the band and a little higher outside it. I do think there will be relative max and min amounts, but not to the degree the NAM has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherpruf Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Just now, jm1220 said: I agree but the NAM is probably overdoing it along with the strength of the band it has-its a known bias, and the other models aren't doing this. I would expect snow amounts to be a little lighter in the band and a little higher outside it. I do think there will be relative max and min amounts, but not to the degree the NAM has. OT...are you back in the area now? Always liked your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.