Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,609
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

Monitoring a potential important TV to East Coastal storm: Jan 17


Typhoon Tip
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

Can't disagree with that. I guess my argument is that is the degree of lift and moisture ahead of them. But in this instance....precip may also be more banded in nature which is fairly common with very strong systems. And if this turns out to be the case...good luck to all forecasts

I view this is more of a general, uniform WAA slug....in for like 8-10 hours, and drizzle-slot.

Banding is usually more west of the mid level lows...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

You should have used my disclaimer feature. “All models have this torched BL but I am just the nam as a quick example”

I mean I'm trying to actually talk meteorology in here without posting memes for once. I'm not a huge fan of guessing what models will do or trying to interpret why they're doing every little thing that they show since there's a bajillion equations factored in and to some extent we have to take the models' "word" on it. But here I am anyway...just trying to throw an example out there explaining my $0.02 and I get defensive weenies butthurt because I didn't say all snow before slot.

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

12 minutes ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

I could be wrong but I think phasing is most likely to be a modeled fail when it is  portrayed To occur in higher latitudes close to our longitude , just much less wiggle room as well for us so when it’s later ..it’s a big game changer , when they are poised to phase in Ohio valley / mid Atlantic well before us, they do usually As even if they are late they still often max mid levels SW of us 

Let's hope for a last minute Jan 2015 style shuffle east. Like the phase is a little less efficient than the modeling is implying now and we get a bit of a slide. Not expecting much sensible difference down here either way, but that wouldn't surprise me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Your next good post will be your first one.

Bro really?  You dish it out constantly Brian, and it’s all fun and good. And now somebody ribs you a bit, and you get butthurt.  Your point is well taken, and I’m certainly not butthurt at all.  Sorry you were offended by a couple weenies, and a lil fun. 
 

Geez! 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I could see a foot there, but jackpot even with mid levels west?

Where did the H85 and H7 lows track in 12/14/1992?

This is where getting the mid level to at least stretch out, and if not totally redevelop on approach, would be huge..

is that the one that laid like 3" of IP across at least western CT? I seem to remember an early 90's storm that was similar to this setup where we got hammered with IP, after an initial quick thump and back to snow to top off, was a mess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ginx snewx said:

Lol but his first 84 hr NAM post is in the books lol

Nah...I've posted it before

Just now, WinterWolf said:

Bro really?  You dish it out constantly Brian, and it’s all fun and good. And now somebody ribs you a bit, and you get butthurt.  Your point is well taken, and I’m certainly not butthurt at all.  Sorry you were offended by a couple weenies, and a lil fun. 

:weenie:

It wasn't about the 84hr NAM. I was trying to make a point about what I'm concerned about come verification time...that the deep E low level flow will erode that cold dome out faster than progged. But hey...it's 4 days out and we'll see. It's just a concern of mine and the NAM image is basically just an example of that.

I'm not trying to steal anyone's snow. I don't even want my own. lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tavwtby said:

is that the one that laid like 3" of IP across at least western CT? I seem to remember an early 90's storm that was similar to this setup where we got hammered with IP, after an initial quick thump and back to snow to top off, was a mess

I don't think so.....that one downsloped the CTRV horrendously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that unless the Navy is right (it’s likely too far se with the low) my area is likely cooked in terms of all snow due to the all the warm air coming inland in the upper levels. However, I do still think my area can get a few inches of snow initially before the mid levels warm up. It’s interesting how some of the inland solutions are showing signs of secondary redevelopment. If that happens, I think it’s possible if not likely that the models are too warm with the surface temps, so while it wouldn’t be more snow it could lead to more sleet and freezing rain before eventually the surface warms too and it goes over to plain rain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Nah...I've posted it before

:weenie:

It wasn't about the 84hr NAM. I was trying to make a point about what I'm concerned about come verification time...that the deep E low level flow will erode that cold dome out faster than progged. But hey...it's 4 days out and we'll see. It's just a concern of mine and the NAM image is basically just an example of that.

I'm not trying to steal anyone's snow. I don't even want my own. lol

Ya, no worries it’s all good. I understand/understood your point.  And I know you weren’t trying to steal anybody's snow(you’re gonna do great there and especially compared to us for sure anyway).  I was just shocked, as was Ginxy about the 84hr NAM.   But your point is well taken, and you’re right.  
 

Hopefully this was a good post….lol. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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