Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,605
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

January Storm Term Threat Discussions (Day 3 - Day 7)


WxUSAF
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

LOL you can? From a pressure map? Maybe you could point them out to me.

The isobars are more sheared out around the L and you can see the secondary forming quicker, but idk if that’s a product of a faster shortwave or not. There does seem to be less HP wedging into Ne though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

LOL you can? From a pressure map? Maybe you could point them out to me.

Not sure about the confluence, but the low placement is different -- the low on the top map is closer to Ohio, the bottom map shows it at the southwest corner of Indiana/Illinois border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, losetoa6 said:

Lol. U guys are too much . 

12z 3mb weaker with the primary 

Less separation with the 50/50 low to the ne on the 12z 

Both good things in my book 

Yes but the bigger issue is that northern wave (even with the weaker sheared out version) damages the thermals and the faster southern wave doesn’t allow the cold to build back south in time.  That and the but less high pressure in front offsets those other gains you are highlighting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, losetoa6 said:

Lol. U guys are too much . 

12z 3mb weaker with the primary 

Less separation with the 50/50 low to the ne on the 12z 

Both good things in my book 

That’s just anomaly colors. Look at the actual isobars. There’s very little difference in those maps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mappy said:

Not sure about the confluence, but the low placement is different -- the low on the top map is closer to Ohio, the bottom map shows it at the southwest corner of Indiana/Illinois border.

That’s one I agree with. We want that low closer to Max any precip into whatever cold air we have. If this was a true cad situation. It might actually hurt in this setup.

My head hurts lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this does become a nw track where we need a front end thump one thing to keep an eye on is where the mid level winds are directed. We want the mid level wind max directed to the NE from the low along the warm front. If it’s a more compact circulation there won’t be as much WAA out ahead of it and by the time the precip arrives the mid levels are scorched. That’s not something the guidance will get right this far out. Remember the tease that mid January NW track storm gave us last year at this range. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, losetoa6 said:

Eps 2m temp run to run change 

 

ecmwf-ensemble-avg-ma-t2m_f_dprog-1597600.png

2m temps don’t matter (unless you just want freezing rain) the problem is at the mid levels. Look at the change at 850 during the 2 most crucial times. 
7AB539BC-CE35-4ECA-B540-F9C83146E47F.thumb.png.101ab5b3b3c9de15e03602f65ea007a8.png
1CD5F481-D977-48ED-8FF8-6FDD88EA7533.thumb.png.8a1df9396e2e38ec25c9af8dfdb1bed4.png

 This is more bad then what you showed is good.  Again unless your goal is freezing rain then yay. 

For the record I don’t like being a deb but the truth is the eps was a step in the wrong direction for snow. It was still better then some guidance and it wasn’t awful but it trended warmer where and when it matters most.  Again unless you want ice. If you want some freezing rain it was a good run. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, psuhoffman said:

2m temps don’t matter (unless you just want freezing rain) the problem is at the mid levels. Look at the change at 850 during the 2 most crucial times. 
7AB539BC-CE35-4ECA-B540-F9C83146E47F.thumb.png.101ab5b3b3c9de15e03602f65ea007a8.png
1CD5F481-D977-48ED-8FF8-6FDD88EA7533.thumb.png.8a1df9396e2e38ec25c9af8dfdb1bed4.png

 This is more bad then what you showed is good.  Again unless your goal is freezing rain then yay. 

For the record I don’t like being a deb but the truth is the eps was a step in the wrong direction for snow. It was still better then some guidance and it wasn’t awful but it trended warmer where and when it matters most.  Again unless you want ice. If you want some freezing rain it was a good run. 

we live in an area where its a win to stay all frozen. We have been what NC was in the Larry cosgrove days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

 

For the record I don’t like being a deb but the truth is the eps was a step in the wrong direction for snow. It was still better then some guidance and it wasn’t awful but it trended warmer where and when it matters most.  Again unless you want ice. If you want some freezing rain it was a good run. 

The snow mean was pretty similar, but I still agree on what you said with the change in the individual members from the EPS. For our region the chances of 1" of snow went up, but the chances of 6" of snow on the EPS went down. I'd imagine this suggests that our ticket to success is the front end thump with way less members holding onto thermals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the para seems to be warm at the start but is slow enough with the southern wave that cold bleeds in and changes most to mix/snow. A little different than the euro front end thump. This sort of evolution isn't common here but to me makes sense with the overall suppressive flow once the NS wave gets out of the way. The whole setup seems pretty sensitive to the relative timing and strength of these 2 features, so I don't think a solution locks in until we are 72 hours out or so.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...