Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,611
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

December 26-27 Storm Threat


Baroclinic Zone

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't think you were on when the 12z GFS came out. It was an incredible 30 minutes of celebrations and paying homage to the snow gods. And then....................................................the roof caved in on our igloos.

I checked it out onnthe droid while X-mas shopping. GFS might not be totally out to lunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so people will say is the bad data.. I don't know what to think of it..looks good at least, and why is the bad data making it go west and not east

Well something is happening to make for an earlier phase and allowing for the trough to take on a negative tilt early enough to help keep the storm tucked closer to the coast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely a tough one here...but not sure why everyone is giving up. Not sure I completely buy HPC throwing out the GFS because of initialization problems. GFS will always initialize worse than the ECMWF because of the technique used...yet usually the GFS does pretty well this time frame. A bit suprised that HPC is yet again going with an extreme solution...except this time an eastern one...while a couple days ago they followed the far western solution. NAM has been pretty useless lately..and thus I only look at it because its the first model out...I would not put much of any stock in its solution. The fact that 10 of the 16 15Z SREF eta/nmm/arw runs are west of the 12z NAM leads me to believe with high confidence the 12z NAM is too far west. Now the ECMWF is the problem model....as I cant rally explain its huge shift east. However given its bouncing around...while the EC ensemble mean has been nearly steady...makes me have some doubt on its solution. So at this time im leaning towards a 0z/6Z GFS compromise...meaning significant snows still probable eastern New England. Obviously still not very high confidence...but I would be surprised if areas Bos to PVD and southeast didn’t get a good 6-10"

Just took a look at 18z NAM...and it does indeed go much further west. However as I said above...I wouldnt put too much into that solution. Other than maybe increasing my confidence of significant coastal snows a very small amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so people will say is the bad data.. I don't know what to think of it..looks good at least, and why is the bad data making it go west and not east

i mean the 18z does get new data I think as well as some 12z data I think...so a correction would of meant a slight east trend imo but we honestly won't know until 00z rolls out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely a tough one here...but not sure why everyone is giving up. Not sure I completely buy HPC throwing out the GFS because of initialization problems. GFS will always initialize worse than the ECMWF because of the technique used...yet usually the GFS does pretty well this time frame. A bit suprised that HPC is yet again going with an extreme solution...except this time an eastern one...while a couple days ago they followed the far western solution. NAM has been pretty useless lately..and thus I only look at it because its the first model out...I would not put much of any stock in its solution. The fact that 10 of the 16 15Z SREF eta/nmm/arw runs are west of the 12z NAM leads me to believe with high confidence the 12z NAM is too far west. Now the ECMWF is the problem model....as I cant rally explain its huge shift east. However given its bouncing around...while the EC ensemble mean has been nearly steady...makes me have some doubt on its solution. So at this time im leaning towards a 0z/6Z GFS compromise...meaning significant snows still probable eastern New England. Obviously still not very high confidence...but I would be surprised if areas Bos to PVD and southeast didn’t get a good 6-10"

Just took a look at 18z NAM...and it does indeed go much further west. However as I said above...I wouldnt put too much into that solution. Other than maybe increasing my confidence of significant coastal snows a very small amount.

Welcome to the board, thank you for the insight. Always great to get more mets on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...