Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,797
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    manaja
    Newest Member
    manaja
    Joined

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


WxUSAF
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Stormfly said:

I'm thankful for the 10" we got in December because if we didn't we'd be in worse shape (snow-wise) than last year at this point.

I guess if I really want it to snow I should sell the plow and blower.  Isn't that how it always works?

 

We? Not everyone can claim that victory. 0". In any event, it's another rough year (thus far)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I know it wasn't a widespread event.  The 6 hours of ZR was actually pretty bad for us, still have tree limbs needing to be removed from that.  I love the beauty of an ice storm event and even the sound especially at night.  But the huge crack and thumping as large limbs succumb to the weight of the accreting ice come crashing down, the reality sets in of the cleanup that follows which isn't always fun.  And the power flashes and surges that accompany them inconvenience many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psuhoffman said:

When the eps looks great often that one member that sucks is right. But why can’t it ever be this one that’s right...???

I settle for the Euro control,  occasional MECS,  being right once every 5 years.  Such a tease, and hardly ever turns out correct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stormfly said:

I'm thankful for the 10" we got in December because if we didn't we'd be in worse shape (snow-wise) than last year at this point.

I guess if I really want it to snow I should sell the plow and blower.  Isn't that how it always works?

 

Me too.  Happy for that 1.0 inches...about the same as what you got only way less.  Closer to 0 than 10.  Still thankful. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

I don’t think that tpv is the issue. It’s behind the trough axis. It’s close but so long as it’s behind it’s not compressing that much. It’s not helping unless it dives in behind and phases though. But the bigger issue is the spacing (or lack of) between the waves off the coast and Thursday’s storm. The ridge to the west is too close also.  

Yea, I agree but it’s still discouraging. I mean, yes the ridge axis out west isn’t ideal and yes, there’s some interaction with the departing storm (not ideal). But I feel like we had enough ingredients that a moderate event was possible if we got the right track. That’s the annoying thing, it’s not an awful evolution but the result is a miss.

I do think though that if the TPV isn’t phasing or helping to sharpen the back side of the trough, then it’s hurting.. not helping, imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, losetoa6 said:

Tonight will be some nice hits I think . The trend past 24 has been great.  Goodnight!!

Yea the key is the remnants of Thursday’s storm and the tpv phasing into the 50/50. There’s no where for this ULl to go. It’s a classic front end, drizzle setup imo. As long as we don’t see some funky changes on how the western energy comes east id bet we see some good runs tonight

D1D35C32-388A-452E-9452-155DA61CF6D7.png

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wentzadelphia said:

Thanks for info,  but can you elaborate on that? Single system as in one model? 

             A single global ensemble system.    In other words, we right now have a deterministic GFS that is run at a different resolution than its ensembles and can have a very different configuration.       In ~2024, they'll be updated together.    There will still effectively be a "GFS", but it will be control member of the ensemble.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

So this time around...it wasn't the thermally challenged base state that did it, but just another bit of random chaos unable to be seen at a longer range? Oh the roll of the atmospheric dice...lol

Thursday was our best setup of the winter since the Dec 15 storm.  More then just "not enough cold" goes into each specific event.  There are lots of factors all playing a part.  We could debate over which is the fatal flaw.  My comments on the lack of cold are more emblematic of the entire winter fail so far.  We have had multiple threads and overall what the common theme muting our chances each time is the lack of cold.  And some have pointed out how dry it is...true, but I am convince, and I am not alone I know HM agrees, that the lack of a nice thermal gradient due the lack of cold is part of the reason storms aren't amplifying this year.   But yes there are some very discreet unlucky timing issues that contributed to the fail Thursday.  If you just glance at the look without looking at the details its a really nice setup.  But there are a few warts that prevent it from being a DC snowstorm.  

That December storm btw was a REALLY good setup.  I know the blocking was north of ideal but there was a block north of AK and a 50/50 and a north greenland block and the result was excellent suppressed flow ahead of a really amplified wave coming across.  That DC had a total fail was really really amazing imo.  I am not saying that was necessarily a lock for a MECS or HECS...but to get no snow from that was really impressive in a horrifying kind of way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Wentzadelphia said:

00z icon is gonna be a nice hit day 7 . Don’t have H5 yet but looking at temps and precip looks fine

That is THE ONE lol.  BTW I do remember the old 3rd wave rule HM was talking about.  I had totally forgot about that from back before the GFS even existed in the old AVN/MRF days.   I had considered the Thursday storm the "3rd wave" though...but I was counting that washed out POS that barely got some showers to Atlanta the other day.  You could make a really strong argument that ushered in the new regime and that this storm tomorrow is wave 1.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Do you know why they aren't updating the GEFS?

         When an upgrade for any model is being prepared, the newer version has to be run in retrospective mode (to generate stats on performance for past years and to recalibrate historical guidance) and then in parallel mode.    NCEP simply doesn't have the computer resources to run retrospectives and then a real-time parallel for both the GFS and GEFS at the same time.

         Ultimately, having the GFS and GEFS not be the exact same model is not ideal at all.    Combining them into a single system will eliminate that flaw.

  • 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...