CoastalWx Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 I don't know...tough to beat the ec and ensembles at this time frame, but that doesn't mean it could tick west. That said, a low going over Chatham?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 This run looks good but where is it getting the bad data from ? the 12z initialization errors...i think some of these would carry over to the 18z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 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. I don't think anyone in far eastern New England should be giving up at all. I think they stand a fairly decent chance of seeing warning criteria snow out that way, it's just a question of whether it's low end warning criteria or if the potential for heavier accumulations (8''+) will occur or not, and if so, how far back west. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msg112469 Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Maybe not the Hudson....but Rain is the biggest threat right along 95 in New England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 LOL, NAM has the comma head from hell over BOS. Stalls near the elbow of Cape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 LOL, NAM has the comma head from hell over BOS. Stalls near the elbow of Cape. Insaaaane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Maybe not the Hudson....but Rain is the biggest threat right along 95 in New England. I highly doubt anyone is going to have to worry about rain from this...if anything areas out by the Cape get a brief period of mixing with sleet but that's about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clinch Leatherwood Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 This run looks good but where is it getting the bad data from ? 12z but with sat and other data. Wary eye but not to be ignored Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbosch Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Maybe not the Hudson....but Rain is the biggest threat right along 95 in New England. The biggest "threat" for people like me is a cloudy sky with flurries yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalcottWx Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Insaaaane radicallllll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 12z but with sat and other data. Wary eye but not to be ignored Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 God, now I CAN'T wait to see what bone the 18z GFS throws at us...this should be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bostonseminole Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 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. Nice first post, welcome aboard, care to share some stuff about you. Private met or Public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneypitmike Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 BY tomorrow the gfs/nam will be up the Hudson. It's steadfast with it's 1-2" in western MA. In spite of its western shift, that qpf holds tight. Maybe we do need our Hudson track to boost our qpf out here. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OKpowdah Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Notice at hr60, the convective maximum in the Gulf of Maine is in the same location as the 12z NAM hr66. And ultimately, not any enormous changes with the overall H5 pattern except with the location of the H5 vort and surface low in the Gulf of Maine (shifted SW), with the appropriate changes to the QPF shield. Nothing surprising -- the convective issues on the 12z NAM were clear as day. Just thought it was interesting to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 God, now I CAN'T wait to see what bone the 18z GFS throws at us...this should be good. the way this day has gone...probably 500 miles ots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Maybe not the Hudson....but Rain is the biggest threat right along 95 in New England. Why?, welcome aboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weathafella Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 18z nam snow tool.....18-24 mid cape west to 495 through all of Eastern MA. Less eastward (12-18) and same amts out to ORH. 4 inch line to Logan 11. 8 inch line 1 mile east of you know who's country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowNH Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Oh my fooking god at 66!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 It's still very compact, and I would think qpf shield would be larger, but man. NCEP models gone wild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalcottWx Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 How does 25" of snow look for e ma on the nam? lol.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 beast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattb65 Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 This will be one of the great weenie QPF maps of all time for BOS. It's like a target where BOS is the bullseye lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthCoastMA Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 18z nam spits out 2.5" of qpf over cweats lawn by hour 72. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowNH Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Someone mentioned in the NYC thread that even though there was an error in the 12z initialization... that has nothing to do with the 18z initialization Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski MRG Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 It's steadfast with it's 1-2" in western MA. In spite of its western shift, that qpf holds tight. Maybe we do need our Hudson track to boost our qpf out here. lol ? looks like we're firmly in the .50-.75 range on that run.how are you getting 1-2" of snow from that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weathafella Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Through 78 hours.....2 inches qpf 128 eastward, 1.75 to ORH, 1to MT Tolland, ...very sharp CT gradient from west (0.25-0.5) to east (1.25). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowNH Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Little Less maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalcottWx Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.