Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,607
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

January 3-4 Storm Thread part II


rduwx

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, HKY_WX said:

I will say this. Late phasers are historically difficult to model. See the 2010 Christmas storm, Jan 2000, Dec 2000 bust. THis is a dynamic setup. You'd be dumb to not follow this one until the last hour. 

Yep, and like you said earlier, that cutoff will be vicious. I can vividly remember watching the wall of precio stop at the gaston/mecklenburg border in 2000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

RGEM only goes out to 48 but looks nearly identical to the 3km nam at that time. Similar SLP strength and position, even the banding and NW side are very similar. Imo this tells me the 3km nam is seeing something that globals aren’t picking up on and with the RGEM on board that’s an interesting development.

rgem_mslp_pcpn_seus_48.png

nam3km_ref_uv10m_seus_48.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the RGEM and Hi-res NAM verify then we're looking at an unprecedented storm at that location based on the research I've done. I just don't think anyone can confidently say what is going to happen if those models are accurate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CaryWx said:

So what model is best inside 60hrs because that's where we are, and in 60+ hours this thing will be more or less done in the SE

Heck we are inside of 40 hrs....it shows it starting here around 12ish Wed that 36 hrs or so....though the NAM3k is still snowing IMBY at hr 60.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CaryWx said:

Yep, so maybe the better question is which model depicts precip. best inside of 60hrs.

Usually the mesoscale models win especially inside 48 hours. Globals, especially the GFS, have more issues with it in setups like this from my experience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cold Rain said:

I just don’t see how the meso models are going to be correct here when none of the globals are coming around to them.

I hear you CR, but just last year we had a storm where some group of the globals showed snow for our parts right up to go time while the mesos showed the snow being 50-100 miles west of here...I’m sure you remember which won out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cold Rain said:

I just don’t see how the meso models are going to be correct here when none of the globals are coming around to them.

The theory I guess is higher-resolution features at play the globals are missing. I think we’ll just have to wait and see how this plays out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SouthWake33 said:

I hear you CR, but just last year we had a storm where some group of the globals showed snow for our parts right up to go time while the mesos showed the snow being 50-100 miles west of here...I’m sure you remember which won out there.

Yeah, I remember that.  If I recall correctly, the issue wasn’t whether or not we would get precip.  It was related to warming aloft limiting snow.  In this case, you have generally reliable models showing a storm developing too far away to get appreciable moisture in here vs precip happy models showing plenty of precip.  The smart money would be to go with the consensus of low impact to the Triangle.  Not saying it can’t change, but it ain’t looking good when you mostly just have the NAM in your corner, especially when it took a step toward the non-snowy models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cold Rain said:

Yeah, I remember that.  If I recall correctly, the issue wasn’t whether or not we would get precip.  It was related to warming aloft limiting snow.  In this case, you have generally reliable models showing a storm developing too far away to get appreciable moisture in here vs precip happy models showing plenty of precip.  The smart money would be to go with the consensus of low impact to the Triangle.  Not saying it can’t change, but it ain’t looking good when you mostly just have the NAM in your corner, especially when it took a step toward the non-snowy models.

A good comparison would be the early December event where the NAM and RGEM repeatedly had widespread snow across LA to northern GA while most globals had either none there (GFS and Euro especially). It ended up the mesoscale models won that battle too. As long as this goes neutral at or before the FL panhandle then climo and meso models should be a good idea of what to expect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

A good comparison would be the early December event where the NAM and RGEM repeatedly had widespread snow across LA to northern GA while most globals had either none there (GFS and Euro especially). It ended up the mesoscale models won that battle too. As long as this goes neutral at or before the FL panhandle then climo and meso models should be a good idea of what to expect. 

Completely agree, but I worry because these systems are completely different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

A good comparison would be the early December event where the NAM and RGEM repeatedly had widespread snow across LA to northern GA while most globals had either none there (GFS and Euro especially). It ended up the mesoscale models won that battle too. As long as this goes neutral at or before the FL panhandle then climo and meso models should be a good idea of what to expect. 

I guess we can hope they’re onto something.

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...