Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,611
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Vesuvius
    Newest Member
    Vesuvius
    Joined

Winter Begins Jan 20th AWT


40/70 Benchmark

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, sbos_wx said:

It's so fleeting, Boston sees a high of 10F the following day.

Are you doing the bird box challenge while looking at the models?

A classic arctic high penetrates all layers not just the top and BL but mid levels also so they are not easily scoured out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
11 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Looks like the GFS gets the sfc warm front up to the Pike. That's where the thermal gradient exists right behind the streamline convergence. North of there there's a large zone that gets up to MHT that is in the low 30s. My guess is this is the model thinking there's ZR and it's trying to latent heat the area to freezing. Then you get another sharp temperature gradient where you go from ZR to IP. Since there's no sfc latent heating with IP you get back into the deep cold. The GFS overdoes thermals and is definitely underestimating CAD so you can almost surely push that IP line further south and the actual warm sector from the Pike to near the south coast. And the further south that IP and SN make it the colder the air you can advect into the ZR zone to offset latent heating.

tl;dr version...toss the GFS sfc params

You went all Tippsy with your explanation. :lol:  Simply put GFS sucks on southern streamers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in an equally awful place for snow.  My response has been realism, combined with appreciating whatever comes.   This winter is a test, but looking through the total snowfall for this area over the last hundred years, there have been some brutal seasons, and this is shaping up to be one.

This storm never had a setup favorable to the coast, and there's never been any significant data to contradict that. The broad strokes for this storm have been settled for some time now, though I'm sure I wouldn't feel that way as the models waffled slightly, if I were on the edge of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Greg said:

A classic arctic high penetrates all layers not just the top and BL but mid levels also so they are not easily scoured out. 

1037 mb high pressure screams "I'M A CLASSIC ARCTIC HIGH" to me. It's laying down the cold air at all levels ahead of the storm.

classicarctichigh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Baroclinic Zone said:

Can we just stop posting those dumb TT snow maps that say "includes sleet" in accumulations.  Use some other site like Pivotal.

Mr TT himself tweeted that the much better maps are those that say depth increase,  takes into account sleet and ratios derived from soundings

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

Day 7 of about exactly the same conversation that's been hashed out for a week about the low levels, lol.

People are still suckers for the models despite one of their biggest weaknesses being handling strong CAD with an arctic airmass in place. Doesn't seem to matter how many times the discussion happens, there's always posts that defer to the authority of the model output.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ORH_wxman said:

People are still suckers for the models despite one of their biggest weaknesses being handling strong CAD with an arctic airmass in place. Doesn't seem to matter how many times the discussion happens, there's always posts that defer to the authority of the model output.

MOS/ Model Munchers is the term we used in college to describe these people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WxBlue said:

1037 mb high pressure screams "I'M A CLASSIC ARCTIC HIGH" to me. It's laying down the cold air at all levels ahead of the storm.

classicarctichigh.png

I don't think people understood what I was getting at. I was getting at the description of what the GFS shows. Not the meterology just the GFS solution. That's all I was talking about and disecting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ginx snewx said:

Hey @Zeus

Oh, I done been knew bout this. I've been restrained; usually I salivate all over a banana like that when I see one, but I've been coy with this one. Honestly, Sunday just kinda ~feels~ like an ugly mess for my neck of the woods. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

People are still suckers for the models despite one of their biggest weaknesses being handling strong CAD with an arctic airmass in place. Doesn't seem to matter how many times the discussion happens, there's always posts that defer to the authority of the model output.

I understand newbies wouldn't know about this right off the bat, but veteran posters should've learn by now about that weakness. There were several CAD-linked events in which surface temperatures were off by as much as 10-15 degrees. Likely the case again here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, WxBlue said:

1037 mb high pressure screams "I'M A CLASSIC ARCTIC HIGH" to me. It's laying down the cold air at all levels ahead of the storm.

classicarctichigh.png

The position and strength do look classic. But - maybe this is a complete misinterpretation on my part - the isobars around the high do not look classic. They aren't curved. It looks like just a fast, flat flow of Arctic air, which may explain why many of the models are forcing the system so far north, as the high is not really pressing south. If anything, it's giving up a little ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Greg said:

The problem is it's a very fleeting Artic air mass. Not classic or favorable where it's strong and keeps the storm from turning due northeast instead of keeping it on a east/northeasterly track instead.

You're saying precisely the opposite of what is indicated from all available guidance... 

I suspect you're focused on the storm positioning/attributes in making this assessment, which probably are in error ...least that's the logical recourse to figure out what would motivate this statement of yours, when there is 0 indication of that within available guidance spectrum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, WxBlue said:

I understand newbies wouldn't know about this right off the bat, but veteran posters should've learn by now about that weakness. There were several CAD-linked events in which surface temperatures were off by as much as 10-15 degrees. Likely the case again here.

GFS might be off by 20F in this case in at least a few spots. It will be fun going back and looking at the solutions when we get to Sunday morning and examine the surface plot.

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...