Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,798
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    manaja
    Newest Member
    manaja
    Joined

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


WxUSAF
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Why 6” of wet snow would look a lot nicer (stick to everything) and last longer (thicker) 3” of powder sucks. Blows around and sublimates the first sunny day. 

IDK.  I just like the look of cold smoke that blows off the rooftops.  My preference is irrelevant I know.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

eps still hanging around in that zone close enough to keep hope alive but not quite good enough to celebrate. There was some good on the 18z (more amplified wave) and some bad (more confluence to the NE and the wave was further south). The more amplified wave is numero uno though in factors we need.  All the details don’t matter if that isn’t amplified. So I guess I’ll take 18z as a slight net positive even if results took a slight step back. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, psuhoffman said:

Dunno...you’re in a temp bind. If this amps up it likely tucks too tight for you. If it doesn’t it’s unlikely to crash the temps. You need a lucky band as the upper low passes and I can’t predict that this far out. 

Sounds like same old problems lol. Thanks for the thoughts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Dunno...you’re in a temp bind. If this amps up it likely tucks too tight for you. If it doesn’t it’s unlikely to crash the temps. You need a lucky band as the upper low passes and I can’t predict that this far out. 

Feels the same way around Fredericksburg (but probably a little but here than in RIC) not sure what exactly to hire/root for. I understand the temp issues we face, just feels like as you’ve said, it’s going to have to align just right. Frustrating and fascinating at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MD Snow said:

Surprised no one mentioned the 12z GEPS. Just looking at total precip on TT and it’s pretty bad. A step back from 0z imo. Any thoughts? 

It was a really weird solution...seemed like it focused totally on the upper low and never linked up with the STJ moisture at all...and its way different then all other guidance so I kind of tossed it as a weird run.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an anecdotal observation...I’ve not done an unbiased study or anything to confirm, but over the last few years I’ve found the geps to be unhelpful with medium range synoptic details. Often it will trend one way then jump back the next. Often when it differs from the op (in situations where the cmc op is in line with other guidance) the geps caves to the op. It just did that with the last 2 storms actually. Showed something vastly different then the operational and caved to the operational.  So when the geps shows something “weird” not in line with the op OR other guidance I’ve learned to just toss it. 

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

This is an anecdotal observation...I’ve not done an unbiased study or anything to confirm, but over the last few years I’ve found the geps to be unhelpful with medium range synoptic details. Often it will trend one way then jump back the next. Often when it differs from the op (in situations where the cmc op is in line with other guidance) the geps caves to the op. It just did that with the last 2 storms actually. Showed something vastly different then the operational and caved to the operational.  So when the geps shows something “weird” not in line with the op OR other guidance I’ve learned to just toss it. 
I noticed the same thing with the Brazilian
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ji said:
10 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:
This is an anecdotal observation...I’ve not done an unbiased study or anything to confirm, but over the last few years I’ve found the geps to be unhelpful with medium range synoptic details. Often it will trend one way then jump back the next. Often when it differs from the op (in situations where the cmc op is in line with other guidance) the geps caves to the op. It just did that with the last 2 storms actually. Showed something vastly different then the operational and caved to the operational.  So when the geps shows something “weird” not in line with the op OR other guidance I’ve learned to just toss it. 

I noticed the same thing with the Brazilian

But at least it looks good in a bikini 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ji said:
10 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:
This is an anecdotal observation...I’ve not done an unbiased study or anything to confirm, but over the last few years I’ve found the geps to be unhelpful with medium range synoptic details. Often it will trend one way then jump back the next. Often when it differs from the op (in situations where the cmc op is in line with other guidance) the geps caves to the op. It just did that with the last 2 storms actually. Showed something vastly different then the operational and caved to the operational.  So when the geps shows something “weird” not in line with the op OR other guidance I’ve learned to just toss it. 

I noticed the same thing with the Brazilian

Whatever happens , last nights 00z gfs run was the best 20 minutes of the winter. 

  • Like 11
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, WesternFringe said:

Most important runs of the year

eta: ninja’d by Ralph Wiggum

To help keep me sane I’ll expect a step backwards with a 967 mb low leaving South Carolina..,

 

but for real the solutions that show sub 980 mb lows are most likely wrong without the flow amplifiying along the east coast.  Reality will most likely be a continued east moving quasi Souther slider at 990 to 997 mb leaving just south of Virginia Beach.  Don’t they often say the latitude a storm enters on the west coast that’s the latitude it leaves on the east coast.  Not sure where I heard that before but I’m guessing only if the flow is zonal or almost zonal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SnowLover22 said:

this is part of what we should keep in mind for the 00z runs tonight. namconus_z500_vort_us_53.thumb.png.e78338ffcb9bea72f83901f1df85c5e5.png

Ideally, we want the TPV to be out of the way but if that cannot happen the next best thing is to get it positioned more favorably. Having the TPV positioned further west allows better heights out in front of the shortwave.

If we’re really gonna do this...the tpv is in a better spot on the NAM then the gfs even.  It’s south but west. Get that far enough west and it could end up pulling this north more. But that’s playing with fire (literally with our base state) so let’s not go there. The h5 is more amplified but it’s also a bit spread out with a southern and northern max. That’s not so good. I wouldn’t worry about the surface wave escaping that’s likely 84 hour NAM foolishness. Besides the primary will amplify in the TN valley in response to the upper feature then the secondary will form in response to that. Even if the initial wave escapes it might not matter. 

  • Like 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...